Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Child maintenance

  • 26 May 2025

    JTJ v. HGSH

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 116
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15905/2018

    Applying the principles that costs normally follow the event but the court has a broad discretion in family cases, the judge found the Respondent to be the overall successful party, the Petitioner failed to show any of his five grounds justified varying the costs order nisi, and the Petitioner’s application to vary was dismissed; costs of the application were ordered against the Petitioner and the costs order nisi was made absolute.

  • 26 May 2025

    JTJ v. HGSH

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 116
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15810/2018

    The applicant failed to establish any of the five grounds for varying the costs order nisi; the court applied the established principle that costs normally follow the event, found W to be the overall successful party on the ancillary reliefs, and declined to re-open or re-find factual matters already decided; accordingly H’s summons was dismissed, H ordered to pay W’s costs of the variation application and the costs order nisi was made absolute.

  • 24 Jan 2025

    何 對 何及另一人

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 17
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC23/2018

    On the evidence the court accepted the wife's contemporaneous communications, the agent's evidence and the second respondent's admissions that the deceased never funded the purchase; the deceased (and his estate) was not the beneficial owner and the husband was the sole beneficial owner of Yinghai. Yinghai nonetheless constituted the matrimonial home and formed part of the matrimonial asset pool. Applying Cap.192 s7 and the LKW v DD five-step approach the court adopted the sharing principle but departed from equal division because of the short duration of the marriage and the pre‑marital orig…

  • 11 Nov 2024

    于 對 戴

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 200
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC550/2021

    Court determined total net family assets at HK$5,953,809.23, rejected applicant's claim that HK$861,700 from her parents was a repayable debt (holding it to be gift/soft loan) and therefore excluded it from liabilities, applied the sharing principle but departed from equal split because applicant had higher future needs, greater contribution in childcare and respondent had greater earning capacity and pre-marital mainland asset; awarded applicant 55% (~HK$3,274,595) and ordered specific sale of the marital home with net payment of HK$3,150,000 to be paid to applicant via Legal Aid and other a…

  • 5 Jul 2024

    HYCC, also known as CHYC v. OJW also known as WOJ

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 134
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9529/2019

    Leave to relocate granted because the holistic welfare assessment favored relocation: mother is the primary emotional anchor for the children, the relocation plan was realistic and well researched, the children's wishes (particularly the son's) carry weight given his age and sensitivity, safety and schooling in Manila were acceptable, the negative impact on the mother (and thereby the children) of refusing leave was significant, and the father can maintain meaningful contact through access arrangements and travel.

  • 7 Jun 2024

    葉 對 葉

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 123
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7247/2008

    Both applications for leave to appeal and the applicant's application to vary the costs order were dismissed. The court held that the grounds advanced merely rehashed trial evidence, failed to identify clear errors in the trial judge's reasoning, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; new evidence was not admissible or credible under established tests; and variation of costs was unwarranted because settlement attempts and mediation failures did not justify departing from no costs order in the circumstances. Consequently no appeal hearing is required and no change to the cos…

  • 18 Apr 2024

    LNE formerly known as LKPBB v. CKLM

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 73
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13477/2019

    Husband was non‑candid and failed to give full and frank disclosure; unlawfully obtained documents were admissible but given limited weight; adverse inferences drawn that husband realized substantial undisclosed funds (quantified by the judge as HK$34,000,000 added to declared assets) producing a matrimonial pot of HK$69,900,000; applying needs and sharing principles a 60/40 division in favour of the wife is just and fair; husband to pay lump sum HK$6,040,000 and monthly child maintenance HK$87,000; costs ordered nisi (no order as to costs).

  • 11 Jan 2024

    王 對 万

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 8
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP72/2019

    Applying Cap.13 s3 and the guiding factors in Payne, the court found relocation to Shenzhen to be in the child's best interests because father is the established primary carer, the relocation plan is feasible (suitable housing, supportive step‑mother, practical cross‑border access), social work reports recommended approval subject to school place confirmation, and the mother's relationship with the child can be maintained by defined visitation and daily electronic contact; accordingly father retains care and control and relocation is approved with specified conditions.

  • 20 Nov 2023

    賴 對 陳

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 229
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9312/2014

    Husband was found not credible and failed to make full and frank financial disclosure; wife elected not to seek division of assets; on the facts and considering statutory s.7(1) factors the court denied husband’s ancillary relief claims, awarded symbolic spousal maintenance of HK$1 per year to wife, ordered wife to pay child maintenance HK$2,500 per month, and awarded costs to wife of HK$6,100.

  • 7 Sept 2023

    DB v. DMA

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 178
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1006/2021

    The Husband's grounds raised disputes of fact without demonstrating an arguable case with reasonable prospects of success under s63A; clerical errors were corrected under the slip rule and did not affect substance; the Judge's findings on the Wife's needs, the children's needs, and the Husband's non-disclosure were supported by evidence; accordingly leave to appeal was refused, stay dismissed and costs awarded to the Wife.