17 Jul 2024
依據Cap.192及終審法院在LKW v DD確立的平等分享準則，法院認為沒有充足理由偏離平等分配家庭資產；兩項物業及其他資產均為婚姻期間取得的家庭資產，故判令女方無償轉讓將軍澳物業之權益予男方，女方向男方支付HKD 361,352.65，並出售羅便臣道物業後將淨收益平均分配；另就各物業在出售或轉讓前之費用分配作出臨時安排。
15 Dec 2023
The court held the matrimonial partnership ran from about 2000 (start of cohabitation) to agreed separation on 26 September 2006; most of the husband's lump‑sum retirement received in 2020 was accumulated after separation and is non‑matrimonial except an identified matrimonial portion (HK$3,160,571 adjusted to HK$1,580,285.50 allocated to each party under sharing); the Hiu On Yuen property and part of the husband's cash and other family assets form the matrimonial pool; a renovation payment of HK$750,000 was added back to the pool; applying the sharing principle with appropriate allocations p…
17 Mar 2023
The court excluded the alleged Parental Loans and Trust Money as enforceable liabilities for these proceedings (finding them gifts/soft loans and the supporting documents post‑event and unconvincing); identified total net joint assets of HKD13700232; assessed W’s reasonable monthly need at HKD90,000 (earning capacity HKD130,000) and H’s need at HKD20,000 (earning capacity HKD15–20k); held W’s conduct was not so gross and obvious as to justify departure from equal sharing; awarded H needs-based provision for five years on a clean break (full for two years and half for three years) and converte…
7 Oct 2022
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'…
17 Jun 2021
Judge held that US$564,405 of the securities account represented third‑party interests and was excluded from the matrimonial asset pool; the four withdrawals for medical and insurance expenses were family expenditures and not added back; Flat 8A was excluded from distribution as non‑matrimonial property bought and held for H's mother and brother pre‑marriage; remaining matrimonial assets were to be split equally (subject to orders) and H was ordered to pay children's maintenance of HK$88,000 per month; costs ordered to respondent (H).
13 Apr 2021
On the evidence the Court found no matrimonial assets to distribute: PDGH account movements and share sales were accounted for; MSH transaction and sale were genuine and driven by funding constraints; Wife engaged in reckless spending (add-back) and failed full and frank disclosure (adverse inference that her needs are met by new partner); accordingly Wife's ancillary relief claims were dismissed with costs.
23 Nov 2020
The court applied the sharing principle after assessing needs under s.7 Cap 192, found no hidden assets or convincing claim for add-backs, accepted the parties’ agreed asset schedule (~HK$192.7m), and made a near-equal division with a modest departure in favour of the wife to ensure she retains sufficient income-producing capital; the court also ring-fenced ~HK$8.002m for the child’s education, required the wife to pay the husband HK$7.5m and deposit HK$6m as a contingency for potential increased US CGT on the Bel Air property, and ordered specified periodical child maintenance (interim and o…
20 Sept 2019
The court applied the LKW v DD stepwise approach: after ascertaining resources (with a 50% liquidity discount on pensions), it found surplus assets and applied the sharing principle with departures for fairness. It treated half of the husbands post-separation discretionary bonus and half of the deferred share payment as matrimonial, excluded pre-marital securities and pensions as non-matrimonial on the facts, allowed a 5% uplift of the matrimonial share to the wife by way of compensation for relationship-generated disadvantage, ordered a capital clean-break lump sum of HKD 7,366,200 to the w…
23 Mar 2018
Applying the established five‑step approach and accepting a two‑stage analysis of pre‑marital assets, the court identified and quarantined specified pre‑marital assets for each party (taking account of duration, separate finances and limited intermingling), treated certain post‑separation acquisitions as the husband’s, applied the sharing principle to the remaining pot and made final orders that effect a clean break: the wife receives a greater share (approx 55.6%) and the husband (approx 44.4%) after transfers and a balancing lump sum of HK$5,721,300; child maintenance set at HK$40,000 per m…
28 Jun 2017
The judge found the husband’s redundancy and consequent reduction in earning capacity constituted a material change of circumstances amounting to a valid trigger under section 11 MPPO Cap 192; accordingly the wife’s periodical payment was suspended until the husband finds gainful employment or an income-producing venture, the child maintenance orders were varied to specified amounts and obligations for educational and medical expenses were reallocated consistent with equity between parties and the children’s needs; the court reaffirmed it could not alter the order for sale of the B property m…