Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Avoidance of disposition

Legal area

Court

13 Apr 2017

FKY v. HCYP AND ANOTHER

Citation

FKY v. HCYP AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1480/2011

The transfer of the husband's interest in the Property on 8 July 2015 fell within three years of the wife's application; the transfer defeated the wife's ability to enforce the $1,000,000 lump sum order and, in the absence of any evidence to rebut the statutory presumption under s.17(3), the court was satisfied the transfer was made with intent to defeat the financial provision and therefore set the transfer aside under s.17(1)(c).
10 Jul 2014

D v. L

Citation

D v. L
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8507/2013

The court granted maintenance pending suit in the sum of HKD413,071 per month payable by the 1st Respondent from 1 August 2014 monthly until further order because the petitioner's reasonably assessed monthly needs (including housing costs and charitable and parental contributions) and the respondent's lifestyle and failure to disclose finances supported an inference of ability to pay; the petitioner's claim for a legal costs contribution was denied because she had available liquid funds (approximately HKD6.2m plus costs on account) such that she could reasonably fund legal representation and…
18 Jan 2000

SZE v. YIU

Citation

SZE v. YIU
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1158/1997

On the evidence the court found Madam Lee was the sole beneficial owner, the Wife held the property in trust for her, the Husband's evidence was fabricated and inconsistent; consequently there was no beneficial interest in the Wife to attract s.17 relief and the s.17 application was dismissed.
24 Mar 1999

TSANG SIU SHING v. LAM KWAI HING AND ANOTHER

Citation

TSANG SIU SHING v. LAM KWAI HING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV2/1999

The Appeal Committee refused to extend time and dismissed the application for leave because the matters in dispute did not raise any question of law or principle, had been fully considered by the Court of Appeal, and involved concurrent findings of fact; accordingly there was no basis to allow late leave to appeal under the court's discretion.
31 May 1996

PANG KWOK HUNG v. PANG LEUNG YEE WAN

Citation

PANG KWOK HUNG v. PANG LEUNG YEE WAN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV51/1996

The judge’s factual finding that the intervenors acquired the shares in good faith and without notice brought the transaction within the s17(2) exclusion, defeating the wife’s s17(1) claim; allegations that the company breached Companies Ordinance s47A could not be determined in the matrimonial proceeding because the company was not a party and that issue was not within the court’s jurisdiction in this appeal; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
7 Jul 1993

YUEN TAM WAN v. HO CHAN YUET LAN and Another

Citation

YUEN TAM WAN v. HO CHAN YUET LAN and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/1993

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the judge had not and could not properly have been satisfied of the three statutory conditions in s.17(1)(b): there were no findings that the husband was the beneficial owner, no finding of an intention to defeat the wife's claim, and no basis to conclude that setting aside the disposition would lead to different financial provision; accordingly the judge erred in setting aside the transfer under s.17(1)(b) and the order was set aside.
27 Jun 1990

MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER

Citation

MIOKO SAKURADA LOUVET v. LOUIS ARISTIDE CHARLES LOUVET AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV24/1990

Service of the application on the 2nd Respondent under Rule 74 was appropriate in the circumstances because she might be adversely affected and fraud was alleged; however the ancillary preservation, discovery and liberty‑restricting orders made against her and Modern China were outside the proper scope of Section 17 and the court lacked justification to impose Mareva‑style restraints on a non‑defendant; accordingly the appeal is allowed and those parts of the order are set aside while the service order is preserved.
14 Jun 1985

HO YIU CHUEN-FONG v. HO WEI YIU AND ANOTHERS

Citation

HO YIU CHUEN-FONG v. HO WEI YIU AND ANOTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/1985

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to impose the statutory time limit on the periodical payment for the child under section 10(2) and by improperly requiring part of the lump sum to be held in trust; the lump sum of $65,000 was excessive. The avoidance of disposition order was permissible but must be tempered to protect the equitable interest of R2: the transfer to joint names was set aside but R1 may declare a trust in favour of R2 for one quarter of sale proceeds. The lump sum was reduced to $50,000 payable absolutely to the Petitioner and the child periodical pa…
20 Sept 1980

RE SAN IMPERIAL CORPORATION LTD

Citation

RE SAN IMPERIAL CORPORATION LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW26/1980

Leave was granted under s.182 because the applicants acted bona fide, the Provisional Liquidator consented and reported no known prior equities, and the risk to the applicants' ability to secure legal representation and meet debts outweighed the petitioner's concerns of prejudice.