Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure of assets

Legal area

Court

7 Jun 2024

葉對葉

Citation

[2024] HKFC 123
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7247/2008

Both applications for leave to appeal and the applicant's application to vary the costs order were dismissed. The court held that the grounds advanced merely rehashed trial evidence, failed to identify clear errors in the trial judge's reasoning, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; new evidence was not admissible or credible under established tests; and variation of costs was unwarranted because settlement attempts and mediation failures did not justify departing from no costs order in the circumstances. Consequently no appeal hearing is required and no change to the cos…
28 Feb 2024

LYT v. CCS

Citation

[2024] HKFC 38
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC2050/2021

On the balance of probabilities the Hong Kong Property was procured pursuant to arrangements made during the marriage and given its timing and source of funds is a matrimonial asset; the petitioner proved the existence/value of the PRC properties and the transferred insurance policies are matrimonial assets; applying the sharing principle and considering needs (including petitioner’s mental health) a 50:50 division after accounting for petitioner’s own assets yields a lump sum award of HK$1,702,533 payable from sale proceeds of the Hong Kong Property.
2 Dec 2022

A1 AND ANOTHER v. W1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3637
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCT14/2022

The court refused leave to appeal and upheld its order for security: the tribunal's awards concerned contractual restitution based on PRC tax authority determinations and did not directly deal with foreign revenue; the defendants failed to make frank disclosure of assets (notably recurring US$600,000 receipts and transfers) and the conduct of the 2nd defendant's controller created a real dissipation risk; the judge's exercise of discretion was within lawful bounds and not plainly wrong.
17 Nov 2022

LSKC v. CHHI

Citation

[2022] HKFC 240
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC891/2018

The husband was in contempt by wilfully and continuing non‑payment of interim maintenance and breach of his undertaking; that conduct impeded the course of justice; there was no other realistic and effective remedy; and a proportionate Hadkinson order was therefore justified — the husband may not be heard on his s17 application unless he pays the arrears (with credit for HKD 38) and complies with the imposed conditions; costs reserved by order nisi to become absolute unless varied within 28 days.
22 Jul 2022

LCTD v. CKMC

Citation

[2022] HKFC 150
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC6340/2018

Court assessed husband's monthly needs at $130,000 but declined to grant maintenance pending suit because husband possessed sufficient liquid assets (after a prudent discount for illiquid 'penny' stocks) estimated at about $2,674,000 which could meet needs for approximately 20 months; however the husband satisfied the Currey test for legal costs provision and accordingly the court ordered the wife to pay interim legal costs provision of $202,500 per month from 1 August 2022 until the month the FDR concludes; husband entitled to half the costs of the application to be assessed summarily.
8 Sept 2021

FREEMAN SECURITIES LTD (PREVIOUSLY KNOWN AS DYNASTY SECURITIES LTD v. IP PO KI

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2549
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2368/2018

A defendant who previously held substantial assets and now claims impecuniosity to vary a financial condition for leave to defend must give full and frank disclosure including the disposition of prior assets; failure to do so permits refusal of the variation and renders an appeal without reasonable prospects of success.
31 Aug 2021

CHAU HUNG WAN v. YICK HING CONSTRUCTION CO LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2565
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1597/2019

The Master did not err: defendants were the unsuccessful parties as the security summons was withdrawn; their application was not reasonably put in order because contemporaneous evidence (writ address, Hong Kong ID) made their case tenuous and their property ownership search produced an incorrect result which they relied upon; plaintiff's conduct was not so unreasonable as to justify depriving her of costs or ordering her to pay defendants' costs; accordingly the Costs Order in favor of the plaintiff stands and the appeal is dismissed.
20 Nov 2019

RE TANG TIM FOOK

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2817
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB8616/2014

The court rejected the Bankrupt's inconsistent and uncredible explanations for non-disclosure; because the Bankrupt's accounts were contradicted by his own statements and documentary indications of sale proceeds, the Trustees' objections to automatic discharge were upheld on the basis that the Bankrupt failed to disclose the Property and the court could not accept his assertion that he had ceased to be beneficial owner without proper evidentiary proof.
20 Nov 2019

李對張

Citation

[2019] HKFC 297
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4305/2013

Respondent was found to have wilfully concealed a mainland asset and deliberately failed to pay court-ordered maintenance despite having capacity to pay; no mitigating factors or effective purge acts existed; therefore imprisonment was appropriate: two weeks for failure to disclose and ten weeks for persistent non-payment, ordered to be executed consecutively (total 12 weeks); interest on arrears and assessed costs awarded; committal orders to be rendered ineffective if all arrears, interest and costs are paid.
22 Nov 2018

GRUPO PACIFICA INCORPORADA v. WORLDWIDE MARINE PRODUCT LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2584
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2640/2014

Because the plaintiff obtained a judgment exceeding its sanctioned offer and the defendant unreasonably rejected that offer and conducted litigation obstructively and without meritorious defences, it was not unjust to vary the costs nisi: indemnity costs and enhanced interest of 10% above judgment rate were awarded from 3 March 2016 onwards; Mareva costs follow the cause on party-and-party basis; costs of the two summonses awarded to the plaintiff on indemnity basis at enhanced interest.