Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lump sum payable by instalments

Legal area

Court

31 Jul 2018

CWH v. CSMS

Citation

[2018] HKFC 123
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1810/2014

The application to vary was dismissed because the asserted changes did not amount to a material change of circumstances: the business losses predated the consent order, loss of employment was historic and the application was inordinate delayed, remarriage is not a ground to vary, and the payer had available resources and had acted unreasonably in defaulting; therefore it would be contrary to principle and finality to vary the lump sum instalments.
11 Dec 2013

WHY v. SCL

Citation

WHY v. SCL
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17308/2010

Respondent failed to prove on balance that the Consent Order was obtained by duress, oppression or undue influence and failed to establish a material deterioration in financial circumstances; further the Respondent was not full and frank in disclosure and several pieces of his evidence were found unreliable; accordingly there is no basis to vary the Consent Order and the summons for variation is dismissed with costs.
10 Jan 2012

CH v. MEH

Citation

CH v. MEH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/2011

The Court of Appeal applied a strict approach: variation of a lump sum payable by instalments under a consent order will only be permitted where events since the order have so fundamentally changed the assumptions underpinning it that it is unjust or impracticable to enforce; the global financial crisis and resultant depreciation in the husbands assets did not meet that threshold because the turmoil was already foreseeable at the FDR date and asset fluctuations alone do not justify reopening the consent award; accordingly the judge did not err in refusing to discharge the second instalment a…
9 Mar 1983

JUDITH MIRIAM CLARKE v. LINDSAY CLARKE

Citation

JUDITH MIRIAM CLARKE v. LINDSAY CLARKE
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC433/1980

The court has statutory power under s.11(1) and s.11(2) to vary, suspend or discharge a lump sum obligation payable by instalments; in these proceedings the judge exercised discretion to suspend the outstanding instalment of 18,000 on terms rather than commit the respondent, distinguishing De Lasala because of the specific statutory power to vary instalment payments.

Hong Kong Case Law

CWH v. CSMS

WHY v. SCL

CH v. MEH

JUDITH MIRIAM CLARKE v. LINDSAY CLARKE