Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of separation

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2015

FHM v. KYM AND OTHERS

Citation

FHM v. KYM AND OTHERS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13457/2013

Leave to appeal refused because the husband failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the validity of the 1985 Deed is not a sufficiently distinct and self-contained issue for a preliminary trial as it is interwoven with disputed facts (notably year of separation) and the court's mandatory s7 MPPO exercise; transfer to the Court of First Instance refused because the case did not present novel or special complexity warranting transfer and transfer would cause undue delay prejudicial to the parties.
20 Jun 2007

KO SHA LAM v. KEI FONG

Citation

KO SHA LAM v. KEI FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3971/2000

On the balance of evidence the court found Chan alone provided the purchase funds, and evidence (including financial records, the loan from Chan's brother, mortgage repayments, the deed of separation and consent order) rebutted the presumption of advancement; accordingly the Defendant held any legal title on resulting trust for Chan and had no beneficial interest chargeable to satisfy the Plaintiff's judgment, so the charging order nisi was discharged and the application for charging order absolute dismissed.
28 Dec 2006

THE TRUSTEES v. ELIZABETH CHAO

Citation

THE TRUSTEES v. ELIZABETH CHAO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB549/2000

On the balance of probabilities the husband only retained a one‑eighth beneficial interest originally and in 1997 he transferred that beneficial interest to the wife for value so by the time of the 2000 deed he had only bare legal title to transfer; therefore no disposition of beneficial interest arose under s.42 and the trustees' s.42 declaration failed.
2 Feb 2004

WONG MAN v. CHEN SING ZIANG

Citation

WONG MAN v. CHEN SING ZIANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA6624/2000

The Court found on the facts that the Deed was validly and voluntarily executed, that the Defendant was not shown to be acting under duress or undue influence and had sufficient understanding to enter the Deed despite medical reports; the Defendant breached the Deed by failing to pay the agreed sum and only paid HK$50,000 which was not full satisfaction; judgment was entered for the Plaintiff for HK$800,000 and monthly maintenance of HK$6,500 from July 2000 until satisfaction; counterclaim to set aside the Deed was dismissed.
19 Nov 1999

L v. E

Citation

L v. E
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7178/1998

The court found the March 1998 agreement was freely negotiated, without undue pressure or exploitation, and there was no sufficiently important change of circumstances to justify setting it aside; accordingly the agreement was enforced and the respondent was ordered to pay the sums specified and to return the loans advanced.

Hong Kong Case Law

FHM v. KYM AND OTHERS

KO SHA LAM v. KEI FONG

THE TRUSTEES v. ELIZABETH CHAO

WONG MAN v. CHEN SING ZIANG

L v. E