Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lump sum orders

Legal area

Court

6 Mar 2020

MAR (nee ARM) v. MM

Citation

[2020] HKFC 49
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC10439/2014

The court found a material unforeseen reduction in the husband's earning capacity since the 2015 consent order and accordingly discharged the rental undertaking with effect from August 2019, varied the periodical maintenance (reducing and backdating the wife's maintenance to HK$14,700 per month from August 2019 to September 2020 and discharging thereafter), discharged child maintenance at dates tied to commencement of university subject to undertakings from the husband to pay direct allowances (or alternatively ordered HK$11,000 per month each if no undertakings), ordered the husband to pay t…
6 Jun 2014

IDC v. SSA

Citation

IDC v. SSA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV91/2013

Court held (1) s.10(2)(a) remains limited to 'immediate and non-recurring needs' and housing is a recurring need so lump sum for purchase is not available under s.10(2)(a); (2) s.10(2)(e) does permit settlement of a sum of money to be held on trust to purchase property for a child's accommodation (money qualifies as 'property'), but (3) on the facts the Court would not exercise its discretion to order such a settlement/purchase; and (4) the Family Court's periodic payment order of HK$118,000 per month (breakdown provided) was properly within discretion and is upheld
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…
22 Jan 2013

IDC v. SSA

Citation

IDC v. SSA
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP158/2011

The court held that s.10(2)(a) GMO does not empower a court to order a lump sum for the long‑term purchase of accommodation because that provision is limited to immediate and non‑recurring needs or to meeting past liabilities; and s.10(2)(e) is limited to property to which the parent is already entitled so the court cannot order a parent to purchase and settle a new property for the child. Consequently the Mother’s claim for a lump sum to buy a property and for settlement of a new property failed for lack of jurisdiction. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to make periodical main…
13 Sept 1991

TADASHI FURUSAWA v. LEUNG KWOK CHAI

Citation

TADASHI FURUSAWA v. LEUNG KWOK CHAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA3225/1989

Lump sum payment orders that could result in imprisonment were refused because concealment of assets was not proved beyond reasonable doubt; however, on the evidence the debtor's earning capacity justified a continuing monthly instalment order of HK$30,000 from 1 October 1991 after accounting for reasonable professional, domestic and tax expenses; costs awarded to the judgment creditor with a counsel certificate to be added to the judgment debt.
14 Jun 1985

HO YIU CHUEN-FONG v. HO WEI YIU AND ANOTHERS

Citation

HO YIU CHUEN-FONG v. HO WEI YIU AND ANOTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV54/1985

The Court of Appeal held that the trial judge erred by failing to impose the statutory time limit on the periodical payment for the child under section 10(2) and by improperly requiring part of the lump sum to be held in trust; the lump sum of $65,000 was excessive. The avoidance of disposition order was permissible but must be tempered to protect the equitable interest of R2: the transfer to joint names was set aside but R1 may declare a trust in favour of R2 for one quarter of sale proceeds. The lump sum was reduced to $50,000 payable absolutely to the Petitioner and the child periodical pa…
9 Dec 1980

ANN VIRGINIA HOTUNG v. JOSEPH EDWARD HOTUNG

Citation

ANN VIRGINIA HOTUNG v. JOSEPH EDWARD HOTUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC53/1980

The affidavit filed on 7 October did not provide the full particulars of property and income required by Rule 73(2); the court requires a realistic and reliable account of each party's assets and income to perform its statutory duty under s.7 and therefore ordered the respondent to file a further affidavit complying with Rule 73(2).
16 Nov 1978

ADELE NORDICA PARK v. JOHN MITCHELL PARK

Citation

ADELE NORDICA PARK v. JOHN MITCHELL PARK
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP501/1978

Section 4(1)(c) is retrospective and the applicant demonstrated a seriously arguable case on the substantive merits such that leave to apply for a lump sum and property adjustment should be granted; delay and changed circumstances did not render the application oppressive or harassing in this case.