Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure and non-disclosure

Legal area

Court

19 Sept 2023

F, CWP v. K, TF

Citation

[2023] HKFC 183
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC475/2021

Applying the LKW steps the court identified a matrimonial pot of HK$5,151,596.74, allowed specified addbacks and adjustments, found the Wife made a greater initial financial contribution to the FMH and greater childcare contribution, found the Husband has higher earning capacity, and therefore applied the sharing principle but departed from equal division to award 65% of the matrimonial pot to the Wife. The court ordered child maintenance from the Husband of HK$16,400 per month, required sale of the FMH with the Husband to receive HK$1,565,378 from sale proceeds, and dismissed other ancillary…
12 Jul 2023

AA v. WSC

Citation

[2023] HKFC 129
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3096/2020

The court awarded sole care and control to the Mother because maintaining the status quo best served the children's welfare: the older children's clear wishes to live with Mother, the Father's unilateral revelation of the half-brother contrary to expert advice and court direction, the Father's deliberate non-disclosure of cohabitation with Madam Li and MC that deprived the SWO of material information, evasive evidence from the Father, his absence during access, and his failure to provide clear, safe and workable proposals for where the children would reside when with him meant shared care wou…
18 Oct 2022

KCMA v. ABC AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3164
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2019

The court found H's manner of disclosure and litigation conduct to be highly unreasonable and, on that basis, varied the Costs Order Nisi so that the costs ordered to be paid by H to W and the Official Solicitor (insofar as ordered against H) are on an indemnity basis; however W was ordered to pay H's costs of and incidental to the FDR from 12 October 2020 (party and party, certificate for one counsel) because W unreasonably delayed instructing experts and failed to comply with FDR directions; OS's costs of and incidental to the FDR are to be paid and indemnified by W; other specified costs (…
12 Oct 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 199
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

The court held that the Wife's persistent pursuit of an unreasonable 'black hole' theory, despite lack of forensic basis, hampered settlement, increased the Husband's costs and lengthened the trial; this conduct justified departing from the Costs Order nisi. The Wife was ordered to pay 20% of the Husband's costs of the ancillary relief proceedings, to be taxed in default of agreement on an indemnity basis; the Husband was awarded 50% of his costs of the summons on a party and party basis to be taxed in default of agreement; certification for counsel was granted; summary assessment of total co…
3 May 2022

庾 v. 劉

Citation

[2022] HKFC 96
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2567/2019

Applying the broad‑brush approach and assessing reasonable needs against disclosed income and resources, the Court fixed the Petitioner’s reasonable needs at HK$16,010, credited her salary of HK$10,000 and found the Respondent had ability to pay HK$6,000 per month as maintenance pending suit; the order is backdated to the date of the Petitioner’s summons (28 October 2020); the Additional Bundle was not admitted where lodged without leave.
21 Sept 2021

S v. C

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1372
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP243/2021

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the judge's decision ordering maintenance pending suit and legal costs contribution was within the proper exercise of discretion: there was sufficient evidential basis (Form E and affirmations), the judge applied correct legal principles including a broad brush approach, she was entitled to favour the payee given the payer's deficient disclosure, and no special reason (such as serious hardship) justified interlocutory appellate intervention; accordingly the discretion was not wrongly exercised and the stay application fell away.
12 Aug 2019

W, AA v. C, GO

Citation

[2019] HKFC 206
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14239/2018

Wife's stated monthly needs were reasonable; accepting wife's income of HK$8,000 and splitting household costs and child expenses, and drawing an adverse inference from respondent's deliberate non‑disclosure while accepting an assumed passive rental income of at least HK$20,000 and capacity to earn, the court ordered respondent to pay HK$16,000 per month (HK$3,500 to wife and HK$12,500 for the child) and granted an indemnity costs order nisi to be made absolute in 28 days.
28 Mar 2019

WONG YUNG TAI v. TOP EAGLE SECURITY MANAGEMENT LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKDC 408
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI126/2013

The court refused to award indemnity costs for the entire action but found the plaintiff consciously concealed her resumption of work from March 2017 onwards, conduct sufficiently serious to take the case out of the norm; accordingly the plaintiff must pay the 2nd defendant's costs on a party‑and‑party basis up to 1 March 2017 and on an indemnity basis from 1 March 2017 to discontinuance, and must pay the 2nd defendant's costs of the contribution and indemnity proceedings on a party‑and‑party basis.
20 Oct 2017

SS v. TMW also known as CT

Citation

SS v. TMW also known as CT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15456/2015

On the interim applications the court accepted the wife's need and limited disclosure by the husband justified robust assumptions; ordered husband to pay the wife HK$15,000 per month as maintenance pending suit (not backdated), ordered interim maintenance for each child at HK$25,000 per month (HK$20,250 for fees plus HK$4,750 for other expenses) with backdating to August 2016 for the elder child and January 2017 for the younger, ordered litigation funding of HK$25,000 per month to be paid to the wife's solicitors backdated to December 2015 until the Financial Dispute Resolution hearing, and m…
26 May 2016

SJH v. CYHC

Citation

SJH v. CYHC
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4264/2012

Having assessed resources and needs and drawing adverse inferences from the Husband's non‑attendance and failure to update disclosure, the court found the child's welfare and the Wife's needs outweighed the judgment creditor's interest in the limited funds in court; accordingly the entire funds were allocated to the Wife and enforcement of HWG's Charging Order against those funds was refused (without prejudice to enforcement against other assets).