Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Earning capacity assessment

  • 9 Jun 2020

    GAY v. BNK

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 121
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13556/2013

    Balancing the children's needs against H's proven current and projected earning capacity, liabilities and reasonable expenses the Court concluded H cannot sustain the previous interim payment level; the IM Order was varied and reduced to HK$4,500 per child per month (HK$9,000 total) backdated to 1 December 2018, increasing to HK$5,000 per child (HK$10,000 total) from 1 November 2020 with 3% annual increases until each child attains 18 or completes full‑time education; attachment of earnings was refused and arrears enforcement remains for separate determination.

  • 22 Apr 2015

    羅 對 趙

    Citation
    羅 對 趙
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2740/2006

    Court found the respondent's evidence about continued unemployment and his domestic financial situation not credible and treated his earning capacity as at least HK$35,000 per month; there was a material change in circumstances (including increased rent income from the 3G unit, children's needs and overseas schooling plans) warranting variation. The court increased child maintenance (with specified transitional periods), ordered payment of medical and orthodontic fees, required the respondent to share school fees (subject to a cap for the son's fees), and imposed a security over the responden…

  • 16 Apr 2015

    NAL AND ANOTHER v. PKW

    Citation
    NAL AND ANOTHER v. PKW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP273/2013

    On the evidence the court found the mother has an earning capacity of approximately HK$5,000 per month and the father a limited part‑time earning capacity estimated at HK$6,000–HK$8,000. Balancing the child's best interests against the limited means of the parents, the court ordered periodical payments by the father of HK$3,000 per month from 1 November 2015 (interim HK$2,000 to continue until then), refused a lump sum, and ordered the father to pay the applicants' party and party costs to be taxed.

  • 2 Jul 2014

    CPU v. LCW

    Citation
    CPU v. LCW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13107/2008

    Respondent's application to reduce maintenance for V and A is dismissed because there is no material change in circumstances and respondent has the financial means and control of rental income; respondent's obligation to pay maintenance for E is discharged from 1 July 2013; respondent must pay petitioner's costs of the application.

  • 27 Mar 2012

    WNWG v. PBF

    Citation
    WNWG v. PBF
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV130/2011

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal because the Family Court judge failed to give sufficient weight to the prior mediation/consent agreement and did not properly consider that the Respondents cessation of employment was a personal choice that did not justify variation where he remained able to afford the agreed maintenance; Clause D(g) did not oblige the Petitioner to fund child maintenance from the lump sum, and therefore the variation was set aside and the application for variation dismissed.

  • 19 Oct 2010

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13087/2008

    Adjournment of the Wife's capital and s.17A applications is refused because the Wife failed to prove the Husband will receive a substantial prospective inheritance or that exceptional circumstances exist to justify adjourning capital claims; the Husband was not shown to be deliberately underutilising his earning capacity; the s.17A application could not be adjourned indefinitely because it would unfairly prevent the Husband from remarrying and the parties are young; accordingly the proper ancillary relief is periodical payments limited as ordered and all other forms of ancillary relief are di…