Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Attachment of income order

  • 12 Feb 2025

    CPY v. TTKJ

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 27
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP148/2020

    Because the father deliberately failed to give full and frank financial disclosure and did not attend trial, the court drew adverse inferences as to undisclosed income/resources, assessed J’s reasonable needs by a broad‑brush method, awarded a carer’s allowance (initially HK$10,000 reducing to HK$3,000 after 6 months), fixed monthly maintenance (HK$26,000 March–August 2025; HK$24,600 thereafter), ordered a backdated lump sum to 1 November 2020 (HK$839,200 after credit), made an Attachment of Income Order to secure payments, and ordered costs on an indemnity basis against the father.

  • 13 Jan 2023

    MYPC v. CWH

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 12
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8147/2014

    Because the Court of Appeal dismissed applications for leave and the parties entered a 2022 consent settlement in which the respondent paid HK$1,995,783 in full and final settlement and the petitioner agreed to withdraw enforcement, the second AIO was effectively resolved by settlement; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to stay the second AIO until further order (and noted that an application for leave to appeal alone does not stay execution).

  • 7 Dec 2022

    SJH v. AMS

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 266
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5963/2016

    AIO granted. The respondent was in breach of the 2018 consent order, had a history of irregular and inadequate payments, and there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not make full and punctual payments; his proposal (attachment of HK$15,000) was unrealistically low and no feasible plan was advanced. The court exercised its discretion to secure arrears and ongoing payments by ordering specified deductions and set a summary assessed costs award of HK$212,885.85.

  • 29 Oct 2021

    M v. C

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 219
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8147/2014

    Leave to appeal out of time is refused because, although the short delay and reasons were acceptable and caused no substantial prejudice, the intended appeal has no reasonable prospect of success: the Judge properly considered MPPO s28 and the evidence, concluded the Father's reduced payments resulted from self-induced financial liabilities though he retained ability to pay reasonable sums and undertook to comply or accept future AIO; on that basis dismissal of the AIO was justified.

  • 29 Oct 2021

    M v. C

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 218
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8147/2014

    Although adverse findings were made regarding the Father’s disclosure and reservations existed about the Mother’s evidence, both parties’ applications to vary maintenance were dismissed and no party was substantially the overall winner; having weighed conduct, disclosure, financial circumstances and the objectives in O.1A r.1 RHC, the court exercised its discretion to refuse the Mother’s application to vary the Costs Order Nisi and to make no order as to costs (costs order nisi), to be made absolute within 14 days.

  • 7 Sept 2012

    YY v. CHOA

    Citation
    YY v. CHOA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7598/2010

    The court made no order as to costs because there was insufficient evidence to find one party more culpable, settlement was achieved late, the husband's financial inability to pay was a relevant consideration, and the family court's policy of encouraging settlement militated against penalising either party.

  • 15 Aug 2012

    YY v. CHOA

    Citation
    YY v. CHOA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7598/2010

    Attachment was refused because the father's inability to pay was attributable to a shared history of financial mismanagement rather than wilful default; he accepted the maintenance obligation, offered a direct debit undertaking, and the court concluded attachment would risk his employment and was not warranted on the facts or under section 28 criteria.

  • 6 Dec 2010

    PD v. KWW

    Citation
    PD v. KWW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11277/2009

    The court continued the ex-parte restraint on dealing with the four Belgian properties because there was a real risk of dissipation and no persuasive evidence that the order would be oppressive to the Petitioner; the summons for discovery against the non-party was adjourned sine die for failure to comply with Order 24 Rule 7A; the court held it lacked jurisdiction to make an attachment of income in respect of maintenance pending suit for the wife but had statutory power under s.28 Cap.192 to make an immediate attachment of income order for the child’s interim maintenance and therefore ordered…