Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Clean break order

  • 27 Mar 2023

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 447
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV113/2021

    The Court upheld the trial judge’s adverse inference from the husband’s deficient, piecemeal disclosure and accepted the use of his earlier Form E values plus a revised valuation of the Lamma Property to compute total matrimonial assets; given the wife’s lack of resources and the children’s foreseeable needs and the husband’s non-compliance with MPS orders, the appropriate remedy was to order transfer of the Lamma Property to the wife on nil consideration subject to the Director of Legal Aid's first charge and the wife's undertaking to meet the children’s reasonable needs, to discharge outsta…

  • 20 Sept 2021

    TJB or JBT v. DMT

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 186
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9861/2014

    The court assessed the parties' needs, found surplus assets after needs were met, applied the sharing principle and departed from equal division to award 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife because of the wife's greater future housing and financial needs; the nine Nepal properties were ordered sold with proceeds divided 40/60; the husband retains his British Army pension; a lump sum equalisation payment of HK$32,280 was ordered to the wife; costs were awarded to the husband (order nisi).

  • 17 Jun 2021

    HCMJ v. HYM

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 878
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP244/2020

    The Court refused leave because the Husband failed to establish a reasonably arguable appeal; the Judge’s findings on nondisclosure and the inference of sufficient resources were properly reached and not plainly wrong, therefore leave and a stay were denied and costs awarded; an order was made under Order 59, r 2A(8) preventing a request for oral reconsideration.

  • 11 Mar 2020

    NSK v. K, RW

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 56
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7594/2015

    Judge accepted there was a genuine change in the husband's income and that the wife was not incurring the level of expenditure previously asserted and was resident in Malaysia with lower living costs; the husband's proposed income‑contingent reinstatement mechanism was impractical given ongoing conflict, so maintenance was reduced to HK$40,000 per month with effect from 1 April 2020 and not backdated, while all other aspects of the original order remain.

  • 3 Aug 2016

    WSW v. CKU

    Citation
    WSW v. CKU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV249/2015

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s appeal: the trial judge did not make a computing error, was entitled to treat the specified China properties as loss-making and to impute undisclosed assets of HK$5,000,000 given the evidence of expenditure and non-disclosure, and was entitled to take into account the respondent’s real prospect of inheritance; consequently fairness supported each party retaining their own assets with joint properties sold and proceeds divided equally under a clean break.

  • 23 Feb 2011

    LJE v. ZM

    Citation
    LJE v. ZM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14025/2008

    The court found on the evidence that the parties did not live as husband and wife before their 2006 marriage because meetings became infrequent from 2003 and the relationship had features consistent with an intimate/financial relationship rather than seamless cohabitation; therefore the marriage duration counted from March 2006 (approximately 2 years). Applying s.7 MPPO and the LKW v DD framework, the court assessed assets and needs, concluded there were no factors warranting an equal split, and ordered a clean break lump sum to the wife equivalent to 20% of total family assets (practical pay…

  • 29 Aug 2007

    K v. C

    Citation
    K v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2421/2005

    Given similar incomes and equal contributions, short marital duration and the child’s needs, the court ordered a 50/50 split of net sale proceeds, awarded child maintenance HK$4,200 per month, ordered reimbursement of interim maintenance HK$95,700, refused attachment of earnings and refused nominal maintenance to the wife, and granted joint custody with care and control to the wife.

  • 27 Jan 2006

    N v. C

    Citation
    N v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7245/2004

    No binding overall financial agreement was found; applying s7 factors the court concluded Wife had greater need, lower earning capacity and health constraints while Husband had superior income, liquid assets and future pension; accordingly Husband ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of HK$2,000,000 (within specified time) and to pay child maintenance of HK$16,000 per month; interim maintenance to Wife to cease on payment; costs order made as set out.