Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Lump sum order

  • 28 Feb 2024

    LYT v. CCS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 38
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2050/2021

    On the balance of probabilities the Hong Kong Property was procured pursuant to arrangements made during the marriage and given its timing and source of funds is a matrimonial asset; the petitioner proved the existence/value of the PRC properties and the transferred insurance policies are matrimonial assets; applying the sharing principle and considering needs (including petitioner’s mental health) a 50:50 division after accounting for petitioner’s own assets yields a lump sum award of HK$1,702,533 payable from sale proceeds of the Hong Kong Property.

  • 24 Jun 2022

    LCC v. LTLA

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1922
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC4/2019

    The court found on the evidence that MIL, WEL and SEHL were materially mingled and integrated during a 30-year marriage so all three companies are matrimonial assets; the Husband engaged in wanton and reckless gambling dissipating HK$96,590,486 which must be added back to the matrimonial pot; the post-separation director's loans are not the Wife's liability and the Husband failed to account for most of them; applying the sharing principle and balancing monetization risk, the court ordered a lump sum of HK$292,000,000 to the Wife (split approximately 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband) payable in stag…

  • 25 May 2020

    CWW v. WYF

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 113
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16805/2016

    There was no proven agreement of separate finance; the Husband failed to make full and frank disclosure (undisclosed insurance, regular undeclared deposits and incomplete company records) permitting an adverse inference; on the evidence total matrimonial assets were assessed at HK$15,173,865 and, in all the circumstances, a departure from equal sharing to a division of approximately 60% to the Wife and 40% to the Husband was fair, producing a net lump sum entitlement to the Husband of HK$4,000,000 payable by the Wife.

  • 25 Nov 2019

    敖 對 湯

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 304
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7224/2016

    The judge accepted the respondent had a diagnosed depressive illness that had reduced her short‑term earning capacity and that a limited short‑term monetary award would meet her needs; parties would retain their own assets; accordingly a lump sum payment of HKD30,666.73 by the petitioner within one month was necessary and proportionate to discharge the respondent's immediate debt and to resolve ancillary relief.

  • 12 Dec 2016

    蘇 對 林

    Citation
    蘇 對 林
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15256/2014

    Permission to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the belated documents did not meet the Ladd v Marshall criteria, the trial judge's factual findings about source of funds and beneficial ownership were adequately supported, and alleged deductions or sale impediments were immaterial or unsupported; nor were there other reasons in the interests of justice to permit an appeal.

  • 29 Dec 2008

    B v. Z

    Citation
    B v. Z
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14535/2005

    On the facts, there were no significant capital assets and the wife's earning capacity was limited; applying MPPO s.7(1) and the three strands (needs, compensation, sharing) the court awarded needs-based periodical maintenance to achieve fairness: $60,000 per month to the wife from 1 December 2008 until death or remarriage; husband to pay $7,500 per month for each child and $30,000 per half year for holiday costs; lump sum $50,000 for dental within six months and $50,000 for a piano payable upon completion of the university music course; the husband's offer to pay $30,000 per year for three y…

  • 24 Sept 2005

    H v. L

    Citation
    H v. L
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9565/2002

    The court concluded the disputed bank deposits were held on trust for the husband's parents and were returned to them, so they are not matrimonial assets; the wife's earning capacity and substantial prior maintenance payments, the short six-year childless marriage and that much of the husband's wealth was acquired after separation justified a clean-break lump sum award of HK$144,000 (payable by instalments) in addition to maintenance already paid (HK$754,080); the husband's adultery was not "obvious and gross" to alter ancillary relief; costs to the wife to be assessed (order nisi).

  • 13 Jan 1995

    FEI TAI CHUNG v. GLORIA FEI then GLORIA YUN GEE

    Citation
    FEI TAI CHUNG v. GLORIA FEI then GLORIA YUN GEE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV170/1994

    The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge's award for the wife's interest in the matrimonial home (effectively HK$5.6m) imposed an unjust and excessive burden on the husband given his lack of liquid assets and the practical cost of servicing a mortgage; the judge ought to have given weight to the husband's illiquid US$500,000 joint venture investment as a foreseeable source of return. Balancing the parties' needs under s.7(1) and the objective of a fair 'clean break', the appeal was allowed in part and the lump sum attributable to the wife's interest in the flat reduced to HK$4,000,000.