Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duxbury calculation

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2023

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP554/2022

Fresh expert evidence was excluded because it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial; none of the proposed grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable; the judge's factual findings rejecting the 'black hole' theory, accepting the Duxbury SJE, ordering sale and equal division, and awarding 20% of the Husband's costs on an indemnity basis were within discretionary bounds and not wrong in principle; accordingly all five summonses were dismissed and costs orders were made as detailed.
1 Dec 2023

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP442/2022

The fresh expert evidence was excluded because the Wife failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence; the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable given the trial judge's well-supported factual findings rejecting the 'black hole' theory and accepting the Duxbury SJE's analysis; the costs order was within the trial judge's discretion because the Wife unreasonably persisted with unsupported allegations justifying a 20% indemnity costs award; accordingly leave to appeal and fresh evidence applications were dismissed.
2 Jun 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 114
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

The Court rejected the Wife's allegation of hidden/dissipated assets for lack of reliable forensic evidence and timeliness; accepted SJE valuations (including Singapore properties and wine); found net matrimonial assets approx HK$248.19M; applied the sharing principle with no departure from equal division; ordered sale of the two Singapore properties with proceeds divided equally; awarded the Wife a capital adjustment (reduced to HK$53,500,000) payable by the Husband in staged lump sums; ordered child maintenance of HK$140,000/month (HK$70,000 per child) with specified reductions during natio…
6 Jul 2012

TCWF v. LKKS

Citation

TCWF v. LKKS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC5/2008

Judge found D‑Day dispositions and 2006 CLA set aside; the husband is legal and beneficial owner subject to amorphous rights of the father but those contingent rights do not remove assets from account; rejected doctrine of dynastic custodianship; assessed husband’s net worth at HK$6,426.2m and total divisible assets HK$6,505m; applied sharing principle but departed from equal sharing because of the father's extraordinary contribution and rights; fixed wife's share at 20% of total (HK$1,301m), credited her assets HK$79m, leaving net payable HK$1,222m; awarded Duxbury capital HK$215m for wife,…
8 Jul 2011

AEM v. VFM

Citation

AEM v. VFM
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4070/1990

The court found the wife's inheritance and her cohabitation with KM constituted a material change of circumstances warranting a reduction but not extinguishment of periodical payments; the court declined to require the wife to apply her inheritance capital to discharge the husband's obligation and quantified the wife's annual need from maintenance at HK$24,000, ordered reduction to HK$24,000 per annum (subject to the Court of Appeal increment) with effect from 1 March 2009, and fixed KM's fair contribution at not less than HK$600 per month.
29 Feb 2008

W v. H AND ANOTHER

Citation

W v. H AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC1/2006

C v C's limiting doctrine of reasonable requirements is no longer to be treated as the governing law in Hong Kong; Hong Kong courts should apply the English sharing principle (White and subsequent authorities) informed by constitutional equality provisions; the husband made dispositions to the Family Trust and Charitable Foundation with the intention of defeating the wife’s claim under s17 MPPO (entitling her to relief), but formal s17 dismantling orders are reserved; applying sharing, needs and compensation broadly the wife is entitled to 35% of the matrimonial assets and the husband must pa…
14 Jan 2003

F v. F

Citation

F v. F
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC4/2001

Court held it was bound by local authority C v C and therefore could not fully adopt White v White as overriding precedent, but applied the statutory s.7(1)/(2)/(3) factors to reach a fair outcome: A was not a child of the family for s.7(3) relief; marriage duration calculated from marriage to separation (4 years 3 months); wife entitled to a clean break package to meet lifetime needs given childcare responsibilities and health; used Duxbury capitalisation with an industry standard assumed real rate of return of 4.25% producing a HK$25 million capitalised annuity component; total awards to wi…

Hong Kong Case Law

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

TCWF v. LKKS

AEM v. VFM

W v. H AND ANOTHER

F v. F