Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Clean break orders

Legal area

Court

7 Oct 2022

LPM v. LKH

Citation

[2022] HKFC 214
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC844/2019

Court found on the evidence substantial intermingling and joint participation in acquisition and management of the principal properties so 46F, 21G and 51E are included in the matrimonial asset pool; the HK$2M mortgage on 46F is a family liability; W had made an exceptional financial contribution by receiving and deploying large gifts from Mr E but H had made valid contributions; applying s.7 the sharing principle applies with a significant departure from equality justified by W's special contribution and short marriage: total net assets HK$24,299,953.59, set aside HK$8,776,000 for the child'…
4 Jan 2018

MGB aka MAG v. GCB

Citation

[2018] HKFC 8
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5376/2015

The judge exercised discretion to refuse variation of the earlier no order as to costs and to make it absolute because, on the facts, the Husband's earlier Calderbank offers were not uniformly effective (insufficient time or disclosure in the first offer) and the case was exceptional such that making no order as to costs was just; the Wife's challenge on miscalculation lacked procedural basis and was refused, but leave to appeal was granted on the clean break/nominal maintenance ground because there was a real issue to be argued given the Wife's medical evidence and future needs.
30 May 2014

KWP v. LCM

Citation

KWP v. LCM
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1567/2006

No enforceable trust existed in respect of the matrimonial home; it is a jointly held matrimonial asset between the parties. Sale of the property was ordered to be postponed until 1 September 2017 to allow the younger son to complete tertiary studies. The husband had dissipated a significant pension lump sum by gambling/trading losses; this justified a modest departure from the yardstick of equality. Net sale proceeds were to be divided 55% to the wife and 45% to the husband on a clean break, with specified orders as to timing, marketing threshold, retention of sole assets, costs nisi orders…
10 Nov 2009

YU v. HO

Citation

YU v. HO
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12363/2002

Judge found total notional family assets HK$4,429,560, added back HK$800,959 dissipated by husband for gambling; after deductions of MPS arrears HK$645,000, accepted genuine debts HK$533,279 and HK$20,000 reserve for winding up, net notional family assets HK$3,231,281; by reason of husband's conduct (gambling and non‑disclosure) and comparative earning capacity the court departed from equal sharing and applied 60:40 in favour of the wife to the net assets; allocated arrears to wife giving final monetary entitlements of wife HK$2,583,769 and husband HK$1,044,832; ordered sale of specified prop…
20 May 2008

SDY v. KSLS

Citation

SDY v. KSLS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC11958/2006

The court found on the evidence that the majority of funds advanced by the wife's father were gifts (with the HK$1,000,000 tranche treated as given to both parties for purchase of the matrimonial home). The TKS property was held to be non-matrimonial but not immune from consideration when achieving a fair outcome. Applying the two-stage approach and s.7 factors (need, sharing, compensation) in light of the short marriage with a child, fairness required the wife retain the TKS property and the former matrimonial home, the husband receive transfer of 31B and the jointly held car park and a lump…
8 Aug 2007

W v. C

Citation

W v. C
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2162/2006

Having considered s.7 factors and evidence, the court concluded that both parties made broadly equal contributions, petitioner has sufficient earning capacity and son support, and respondent offered to transfer his entire interest; accordingly it was fair to order respondent to transfer his entire interest in the Chaiwan Property to petitioner on a clean break basis, dismiss ancillary claims for maintenance, allocate stamp duty to petitioner and each party to bear their own transfer costs, with the order nisi to become final after 21 days.
14 Jan 2003

F v. F

Citation

F v. F
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC4/2001

Court held it was bound by local authority C v C and therefore could not fully adopt White v White as overriding precedent, but applied the statutory s.7(1)/(2)/(3) factors to reach a fair outcome: A was not a child of the family for s.7(3) relief; marriage duration calculated from marriage to separation (4 years 3 months); wife entitled to a clean break package to meet lifetime needs given childcare responsibilities and health; used Duxbury capitalisation with an industry standard assumed real rate of return of 4.25% producing a HK$25 million capitalised annuity component; total awards to wi…
30 Sept 1994

NORMAN ERIC TOMLIN v. MICHELE HELENE TOMLIN

Citation

NORMAN ERIC TOMLIN v. MICHELE HELENE TOMLIN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA4036/1994

The consent clean break order, negotiated with knowledge of the Defendant's siphoning, was intended to and did take that conduct into account; permitting the Plaintiff to pursue a separate claim would undermine the finality of the consent order and amount to an abuse of process, so the statement of claim was properly struck out and the action dismissed.
23 Oct 1991

MARTYN HUGH THOMSON v. NOREEN KATHERINE MCMULLEN THOMSON

Citation

MARTYN HUGH THOMSON v. NOREEN KATHERINE MCMULLEN THOMSON
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV82/1991

The appeal is dismissed: the Court held the three-year time limit did not bar the wife from seeking variation under s.11 within that period; the judge was entitled in principle to impose a time-limited award in the circumstances and was not plainly wrong; the absence of a Form 8 or prior explicit warning did not cause actual injustice in the special circumstances and did not amount to a breach of natural justice that would invalidate the order.