Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Judicious encouragement

  • 15 Feb 2013

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV18/2012

    Third‑party financial assistance can be treated as part of a spouse’s financial resources under s7(1)(a) MPPO where, on the evidence, the assistance has been provided and is likely to continue in the foreseeable future; courts must not use a separate doctrine of 'judicious encouragement' to frame orders that effectively pressure non‑parties or usurp their discretion. Applying these principles, the Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings that the husband had underutilised earning capacity and benefitted from continuing parental support, justifying increased periodical payments and a lump s…

  • 31 Jul 2012

    CNLC v. LTY

    Citation
    CNLC v. LTY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16895/2011

    Applying the broad‑brush approach and concluding the Husband has access to substantial family resources (judicious encouragement) and that his financial disclosure was deficient, the court assessed immediate reasonable needs at HK$287,016/month, credited the Wife with earning capacity of HK$100,000/month plus HK$12,600 rental income, and ordered the Husband to pay the shortfall of HK$174,000/month from 1 August 2012; the Wife's application for contribution to legal costs was refused because she had deployable assets and had not demonstrated inability to fund representation.

  • 1 Jun 2012

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FAMV10/2012

    Leave to appeal was granted because it was reasonably arguable that the Court of Appeal's judgment was based at least in part on the notion of 'judicious encouragement', and that this raised a matter of great general or public importance warranting consideration by the Court of Final Appeal; leave was limited to that basis.

  • 1 Jun 2012

    D,AS then known as R,JP v. D,SKR

    Citation
    D,AS then known as R,JP v. D,SKR
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11559/2010

    Given insufficient reliable evidence of husbands own assets and uncertain continuing support from his family, the court accepted the practical offer available from the husbands family and ordered a one‑off lump sum of HK$1,600,000 to the wife as full and final capital settlement, required the husband to return the wifes jewellery and to continue paying the childs school fees, and preserved the wifes ability to claim in future by awarding nominal periodical maintenance of HK$1 per annum; a costs order nisi was also made. The court refused to order more than the concrete third‑party provis…

  • 14 Mar 2012

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV75/2011

    Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the issues raised were primarily fact‑sensitive, the relevant principles (including judicious encouragement) are already settled by case law and do not raise questions of great and general public importance requiring further consideration by the Court of Final Appeal; the application for a stay of execution was also refused and costs awarded to the Wife.

  • 2 Dec 2011

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV75/2011

    The Court concluded the trial judge was plainly wrong to fix maintenance at the low sums ordered because the Husband had under‑utilised earning capacity and continued substantial parental financial support; applying the doctrine of judicious encouragement and assessing the Wife's needs, the proper maintenance is HK$42,500 per month and a capital lump sum of HK$1,500,000 payable within one year, and the secured periodical payment application should not be dismissed permanently; costs awarded to the Wife on appeal.

  • 28 Jul 2011

    LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    LPK v. SH also known as HSC AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11930/2010

    The court exercised its wide discretion to grant interim maintenance because the 1st Respondent in substance retained access to significant funds by drawing loans secured on the Taiwan property (effectively continuing the father's 'bounty' in another form), but refused to include legal fees for Hong Kong or Taiwan proceedings because the petitioner did not first show she could not obtain publicly funded legal assistance; the court also ordered costs of the MPS and costs of abandoned stay/forum summons (partly payable forthwith).