Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Non-disclosure of assets

  • 11 Dec 2025

    何文傑及江詩敏 李煥填的共同財產受託人 對 李煥填

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6223
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB3121/2021

    On the balance of probabilities the trustee's three complaints were proven: the bankrupt repeatedly failed to respond to repeated written enquiries about mainland investments and a Hong Kong property, attempted post-bankruptcy transfer of property interests, and submitted late/inaccurate annual statements. Those failures constituted non-cooperation and unsatisfactory conduct under s30A(4), prejudicing estate administration. The automatic discharge is therefore suspended for two years and the bankrupt must pay the trustee's costs assessed at HK$83,000.

  • 1 Aug 2025

    CHINA EVERGRANDE GROUP (IN LIQUIDATION) v. HUI KA YAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3470
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1080/2024

    On the materials the court was satisfied there was good reason to suppose the assets registered in the name of Ms He (the He Chabra Assets) were in reality funded, controlled and beneficially owned by CEO Xia, that those assets would likely be amenable to execution, and that there was a real risk of dissipation; confidentiality justified ex parte procedure; accordingly leave was granted to join Ms He, the Chabra injunction was granted as amended, service out was permitted and related orders were made.

  • 7 Mar 2023

    RE CHU YING KIN

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 680
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB4013/2017

    The court found on balance that the bankrupt wilfully failed to disclose multiple assets/claims (registered trademarks, a substantial ongoing PRC property claim, shareholdings) and was evasive with the Official Receiver, thereby establishing grounds (c) (failure to co-operate) and (d) (unsatisfactory conduct) under s30A(4). Given the duty to disclose, the OR's need to investigate and the aims of rehabilitation balanced against commercial morality, the court exercised its discretion to suspend the Relevant Period. The Time Summons was retrospectively granted. The suspension was set at one year…

  • 4 Dec 2020

    HCMJ v. HYM

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 238
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12078/2014

    The application for leave to appeal was refused because the judge held there was no reasonable prospect of success: findings of concealed assets and adverse inference were supported by evidence of extravagant lifestyle and an expert rental report; the needs and lump sum calculations were properly based on the wife’s evidence; the husband provided no substantive reason or evidence to justify a stay of execution.

  • 10 Nov 2020

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 172
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    Because the respondent failed to make full and frank disclosure and gave evasive evidence the court drew adverse inferences, adopted the respondent's earlier fuller Form E as a baseline but updated the Lamma Property valuation (HK$10,100,000) to quantify total matrimonial assets at HK$17,305,768.35, found the wife's and children's quantified needs (HK$21,702,900) exceeded available liquid surplus and that no practical secure periodic maintenance would be obtained from the respondent; accordingly the court ordered transfer of the Lamma Property to the wife at nil consideration (subject to Lega…

  • 18 Jul 2019

    CSF v. KMC

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 180
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3992/2012

    Wife's claims for unpaid Interim MPS and for periodical maintenance were dismissed. Key reasons: entitlement to MPS ceased on decree absolute (11 Sep 2017); wife failed to seek enforcement/leave under s12 within 12 months and did not show special circumstances; wife had received substantial capital under prior consent orders and, together with her future share of Lee Fung proceeds and a settlement payment, has sufficient capital to meet needs; husband's belated disclosure did not change that outcome. Court ordered sale of Lee Fung Property at not less than HK$51,000,000 and specified transfer…

  • 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.

  • 3 Aug 2016

    WSW v. CKU

    Citation
    WSW v. CKU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV249/2015

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the respondent’s appeal: the trial judge did not make a computing error, was entitled to treat the specified China properties as loss-making and to impute undisclosed assets of HK$5,000,000 given the evidence of expenditure and non-disclosure, and was entitled to take into account the respondent’s real prospect of inheritance; consequently fairness supported each party retaining their own assets with joint properties sold and proceeds divided equally under a clean break.

  • 30 Jun 2016

    WMY v. CSK

    Citation
    WMY v. CSK
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17011/2011

    On the balance of probabilities the Husband failed to prove the existence of unpaid loans of ~HK$3.2m and the Wife's liability under the 13/12/2008 Loan Agreement; the court found the Husband diverted AMG receivables to SGFL and that SGFL and M&M are not family assets; the Wife did not conceal beneficial interest in MH Factory; the HK$600,000 from wife's maiden family is a financial liability of the Wife; given short marriage, post-separation accumulation and parties' earning capacities a walk-away outcome is fair and ancillary reliefs are dismissed, with a specific costs order in favour of t…

  • 24 May 2016

    蘇 對 林

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

    The court found the husband failed to discharge the evidential burden to show that his mother retained the beneficial ownership of the Singapore and three Hong Kong properties; factual findings supported an intention to gift/entrust to the husband and his long-standing exercise of beneficial rights. The matrimonial assets (excluding an unvalued Singapore property) totalled HKD10,457,000; starting from equal division, there were no sufficient reasons to depart from equal sharing. The husband had concealed material bank deposits, warranting adverse inference. Result: equal sharing applied; each…