Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Disposition of assets

  • 6 Mar 2024

    MPY v. WYC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 26
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3297/2022

    The court found the Wife demonstrated a bona fide claim that the transfer of 100% shareholdings from Merida to Super Matrix and Grand Goal defeated ancillary relief; Merida's deregistration did not, on the evidence, preclude it from holding assets; facts indicated Merida operated as the Husband's nominee such that joinder of the transferee companies was necessary and just and convenient to determine the proprietary issues; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to join Super Matrix and Grand Goal as 2nd and 3rd respondents (limited to ancillary relief) and made a costs order nisi agai…

  • 23 May 2019

    AK v. MYNT

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 562
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP43/2019

    The Court refused leave to appeal because the Husband failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable ground of appeal; the Family Court judge did not plainly err in granting an ex parte injunction given the Husband's secrecy, refusal to agree to escrow and the material effect of the mortgage on the Wife's interest, and there was no clear requirement that the Wife provide an undertaking as to damages.

  • 14 Mar 2018

    CLC v. SKW

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 143
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV256/2015

    The judge's factual finding that the HK$400,000 was a family 'soft loan' or subsidy (not a legally enforceable loan subsequently forgiven) was open on the evidence; there was no evidence of any change of intention or of forgiveness intended to defeat the wife's ancillary relief claim. Therefore the wife failed to discharge the burden of proving the requisite intention under s17 and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 27 Sept 1977

    BANCOM INTERNATIONAL LTD v. COLLIN K.L. KUNG

    Citation
    BANCOM INTERNATIONAL LTD v. COLLIN K.L. KUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2175/1977

    Because the defendant had sold a flat and disposed of net proceeds and moved his family abroad at a time of heavy liabilities, the court found probable cause that he was likely to obstruct or delay execution and therefore had not shown cause why he should not be required to give bail; the court exercised its discretion to fix bail at $100,000 and ordered surrender of travelling documents, discharge of the warrant upon compliance, otherwise warrant to remain in force and costs against the defendant.

  • FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LAM SAM KEE AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    FAR EAST BANK LTD v. LAM SAM KEE AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA151/1967

    Application refused because the plaintiff failed to prove that the 1st defendant had disposed of his property in the sense of divesting proprietorship so as to make execution of any judgment likely to be obstructed or delayed; the affidavits (including hearsay) were insufficient and realization of stock to pay creditors did not fall within Order 44A.