Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lump sum payment

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2021

L, T v. M, MD

Citation

[2021] HKFC 162
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5131/2019

Decree absolute granted because the petitioner failed to establish credible, evidence-based risk that the respondent would abscond or not pay; the respondent demonstrated he cannot access the Swiss pension until decree absolute making refusal would cause real financial prejudice to petitioner; court secured payment by endorsing a penal notice and ordering steps to liquidate the pension and by costs consequences.
4 Jan 2006

L v. P

Citation

L v. P
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15310/2003

Court balanced the Wife's needs, her limited current earning capacity and health, against the Husband's proven ability to pay (taking into account release of son expenses and contribution from new wife) and the equitable division of the matrimonial home; ordered periodical maintenance of HK$8,000 per month, a lump sum of HK$325,000 for the Wife's half interest in the home payable within three months in exchange for transfer, and deferred entitlement to 50% of any commuted lump sum pension payable to the Wife only upon the Husband's receipt of such commuted pension.
4 Nov 1997

YU SIU FUNG v. CHEUNG CHIN WAI

Citation

YU SIU FUNG v. CHEUNG CHIN WAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV135/1997

The Court of Appeal held the judge did not misapply his discretion under s.7 and his substantive decision (award of a lump sum of HKD 500,000 to the wife) was unassailable; because the judge lacked power at that time to order sale, the formal order for sale was set aside and replaced with an order for payment of HKD 500,000 and consequential undertakings; the costs order (no order on appeal; parties' own costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations) was appropriate in the circumstances.
27 Oct 1983

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI

Citation

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC14/1976

Grant leave to issue notice to apply under s.4(1)(a) and s.4(1)(c) because, despite delay and the applicant's questionable conduct and inadequate disclosure, the substantial disparity in the parties' financial positions gives the wife a seriously arguable case; refuse leave to apply under s.11 in respect of variation of settlements made pursuant to s.6(c) because s.11 does not permit variation of s.6(c) settlements.
15 Oct 1975

KATHLEEN JOY WOO v. ANDREW PO KUN WOO

Citation

KATHLEEN JOY WOO v. ANDREW PO KUN WOO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC25/1975

Having regard to the parties' respective contributions, needs, the lateness of the application and the respondent's present means, the court was satisfied the petitioner was entitled to a lump sum of HKD 15,000 and that payment by instalments of HKD 300 per month commencing 1 November 1975 was fair and within the respondent's ability.

Hong Kong Case Law

L, T v. M, MD

L v. P

YU SIU FUNG v. CHEUNG CHIN WAI

LEE WING TAT v. LEE CHAN LO KAI

KATHLEEN JOY WOO v. ANDREW PO KUN WOO