Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Duxbury capitalisation

  • 2 Aug 2024

    LKYI v. GJS, as the Personal Representative of KO , the Deceased

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 145
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP46/2020

    Applicant qualified as a dependent under s3(1)(ix). Maintenance award is limited to reasonable financial provision for maintenance (not capital for gratuitous benefit). After assessing s5 factors, the court fixed monthly maintenance at HKD75000, capitalised by accepted Duxbury methodology to HKD40092000, and balanced accommodation needs by transferring 50% legal and beneficial title in Stubbs Road Property plus a lump sum payment (subject to applicant's undertaking to prevent double recovery). The court rejected Respondent's alternative calculation methods because they were unsupported by exp…

  • 12 Oct 2022

    YSG (YX) v. LYAG

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 202
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15288/2015

    Leave to appeal was refused because none of the proposed grounds were reasonably arguable: the trial judge did not err in rejecting the hidden assets theory, in the assessment of needs and Duxbury calculation, or in ordering sale of the Singapore properties; there was also insufficient basis to grant a stay and the Wife was ordered to pay the Husband's costs of HK$100,000.

  • 26 Jul 2019

    WYSL v. FHCBA

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 814
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV399/2018

    Appellate court will not overturn primary judge's detailed findings of fact that the disputed properties were beneficially owned by the Father and thus s17 set‑aside was not made out; the primary judge's discretionary approach to capitalising the Wife's needs was not in principle wrong but required upward adjustment on the facts to meet other identified needs (career re‑integration and future security) and to reflect realistic accommodation costs; the Husband's interest in the discretionary trust need not be relied upon to make the award but, on the Charman test, may nevertheless be likely to…

  • 2 Sept 2002

    L v. T

    Citation
    L v. T
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2250/2000

    The Court held the 1951 customary marriage remained subsisting despite physical separation from 1956 due to the customary context and ongoing clan recognition; the 1983 High Court settlement did not dispose of the Wife's matrimonial claims; delay did not bar relief given the circumstances; applying s.7 factors and Duxbury guidance but allowing adjustment where resources exceed needs, the Wife's reasonable needs and the equities justified a single lump sum award of HK$12,000,000 as full and final settlement of her ancillary claims.

  • 12 May 1995

    NG AU YUEN NGAR PAMELA v. NG KIT LING AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    NG AU YUEN NGAR PAMELA v. NG KIT LING AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC1/1995

    Judge found on balance that the Respondent had not made full and frank disclosure, inferred that the Respondent was the beneficial owner or effectively behind companies and properties held in others' names, assessed the Petitioner's reasonable monthly needs at HK$85,000 and the Respondent's asset base at roughly HK$30–40 million, and therefore awarded the Petitioner a lump sum of HK$16,000,000 and retained the proceeds of the Canadian house; costs awarded nisi to the Petitioner.