Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Lump sum settlement

  • 29 May 2023

    吳 對 王

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 93
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14470/2017

    Court found separation date was July 2009; Cheung Sha Wan property was acquired after separation with respondent's post-separation funds and is non‑matrimonial (or justifies departure from equal sharing); applicant failed to make full, credible disclosure so adverse inferences applied; applicant's future need assessed at HK$3,240,000 minus disclosed assets (HK$98,723.11) but allowing an adverse inference reduced recovery to a fair lump sum of HK$2,513,000; ordered applicant to vacate Cheung Sha Wan property within 4 months and respondent to pay HK$2,513,000 in staged payments with respondent…

  • 29 Mar 2018

    WS v. CWK

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 44
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17740/2012

    Because the petitioner obtained a lump sum (HK$1,863,325) exceeding her without prejudice offer (HK$1,800,000), the Court awarded costs to the petitioner restricted to the trial hearing (26 July 2017 to judgment) and ordered respondent to pay half of the costs of the costs application, while making no order as to costs for prior ancillary relief proceedings.

  • 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…

  • 21 Mar 2007

    TCW v. LC

    Citation
    TCW v. LC
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV139/2006

    Costs are discretionary in family cases and, on the facts of this appeal (offers, concessions and rejected grounds), it was fair and reasonable to confirm the order nisi that there be no order as to costs and to order that the costs of the day be part of the appeal costs.

  • 27 Jan 2006

    N v. C

    Citation
    N v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7245/2004

    No binding overall financial agreement was found; applying s7 factors the court concluded Wife had greater need, lower earning capacity and health constraints while Husband had superior income, liquid assets and future pension; accordingly Husband ordered to pay Wife a lump sum of HK$2,000,000 (within specified time) and to pay child maintenance of HK$16,000 per month; interim maintenance to Wife to cease on payment; costs order made as set out.

  • 21 Feb 2001

    YUEN TOOMBS STEPHANIE DOWNS v. YUEN ELMER

    Citation
    YUEN TOOMBS STEPHANIE DOWNS v. YUEN ELMER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC2/2000

    The judge proceeded in the respondent's absence because his medical evidence was unconvincing and he had wilfully failed to comply with disclosure orders; adverse inferences were drawn from non‑disclosure and the court found the purported share transfers to be sham transactions intended to defeat the petitioner’s claims and set them aside under s.17; on the evidence the petitioner made significant contributions to the matrimonial wealth and was awarded a lump sum and children's lump sums as fair and final settlement; respondent's ancillary relief was dismissed.

  • 4 Aug 1995

    KEIKO MARUKO v. YOSHIO MARUKO

    Citation
    KEIKO MARUKO v. YOSHIO MARUKO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV32/1995

    The Court dismissed the husband's appeal because the valuation evidence for the company was not undermined, the judge properly considered income, earning capacity and the wife's contributions, there was no evidence the award would cripple the business, and deficiencies in disclosure did not justify increasing the award on mere inference; the security and amended payment schedule for the second tranche were appropriate and the cross‑appeal failed.

  • 27 May 1987

    YING KA KWOK TANIA v. ELMER YUEN

    Citation
    YING KA KWOK TANIA v. ELMER YUEN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA8/1986

    Judge accepted petitioner made substantial managerial and proprietorial contributions to Tele-Art such that she has a part-equity interest; judge balanced that contribution against post-1982 increase in value from flotation and awarded a single capital lump sum of HK$7,500,000 (with a staged payment schedule) rather than a full share of post-flotation value, ordered interim maintenance and reserved security and costs issues.

  • 22 Mar 1969

    HUI SHIU WING v. CHEUNG YUK LIN

    Citation
    HUI SHIU WING v. CHEUNG YUK LIN
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV40/1967

    Applying section 28 and authorities (notably Davis v. Davis), balancing the wife's limited fortune and earning capacity, the husband's manifest ability to pay despite some liabilities and minority shareholdings, the parties' conduct (Full Court granted divorce to the wife though with reservations), and the modest standard of living during marriage, a lump sum of $250,000 and annual maintenance of $60,000 (with two-thirds secured for life) is reasonable and appropriate.