30 Apr 2024
The ex-parte applications were dismissed because the father failed to establish the required extreme urgency or secrecy to justify ex-parte mandatory relocation orders, the mother (who shares interim care) was entitled to be notified and heard, and the father's repeated prior dismissals rendered the ex-parte process an abuse of court process.
27 Jul 2010
Court held parties did not maintain wholly separate finances; LS was partly pre‑marital (approx 11%) but for fairness was included in the asset pool; husband found to have recklessly overspent and dissipated assets largely on flying/helicopter expenditures and holidays and HK$1.2M was to be notionally added back to the asset computation; applying need, compensation and sharing the court awarded the wife a lump sum of HK$500,000 payable within 28 days and ordered the husband to pay one third of the wife’s costs (order nisi).