Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Enforcement of maintenance

  • 27 Aug 2025

    LCH v. WPSN

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 783
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV327/2024

    Leave to appeal refused because the proposed questions were not reasonably arguable: direct committal under Order 52 r 2 is available and not precluded by YBL or PD SL10.2; lack of funds is not a generally arguable defence outside the specific factual context; the penal notice point failed because no objection was taken below, the Flywin principle applies, and the order in question was endorsed with and served with a penal notice. Costs awarded and no stay granted.

  • 7 Dec 2022

    SJH v. AMS

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 266
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5963/2016

    AIO granted. The respondent was in breach of the 2018 consent order, had a history of irregular and inadequate payments, and there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not make full and punctual payments; his proposal (attachment of HK$15,000) was unrealistically low and no feasible plan was advanced. The court exercised its discretion to secure arrears and ongoing payments by ordering specified deductions and set a summary assessed costs award of HK$212,885.85.

  • 22 Mar 2019

    梁 對 谷

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 73
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC4920/2004

    The court accepted the statutory multi-factorial assessment under Cap.192 and, on balancing the payer's proven income, reasonable expenses and self-inflicted indebtedness against the recipient's needs and the child’s needs, concluded the proper adjustment was a modest reduction of HKD500 per month; debts and asserted future unemployment did not justify a larger reduction. The variation takes effect from June 2017.

  • 9 May 2013

    LCC v. JPG

    Citation
    LCC v. JPG
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP4/2012

    The court confirmed the 26 May 2010 order and dismissed the husband's variation application because evidence showed the husband had means to meet maintenance obligations until April 2010 and could have used other financial resources thereafter; the ordered sums were minimal and the wife's lack of means and the children's needs justified confirmation under Cap.188 s.8/10 and Cap.192 s.11(7).