19 Dec 2025
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any compelling reason; the trial judge's factual findings and application of LKW principles were not shown to be plainly wrong and therefore did not justify granting leave.
20 Sept 2021
The court assessed the parties' needs, found surplus assets after needs were met, applied the sharing principle and departed from equal division to award 40% to the husband and 60% to the wife because of the wife's greater future housing and financial needs; the nine Nepal properties were ordered sold with proceeds divided 40/60; the husband retains his British Army pension; a lump sum equalisation payment of HK$32,280 was ordered to the wife; costs were awarded to the husband (order nisi).
12 May 2016
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court, applying s63A(2) District Court Ordinance, concluded the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success given the trial judge's well-supported factual findings on the husband's earning capacity, non-disclosure, litigation misconduct and the reasonableness of the ancillary relief award (including pension share); consequently the application was frivolous and vexatious and no oral reconsideration would be allowed under Order 59 Rule 2A(8).
18 May 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's ancillary relief order was a lawful exercise of discretion within the generous ambit for such decisions, the petitioner failed to show that the Judge's reasoning was plainly wrong or legally erroneous, and critical factual and legal contentions (notably US tax consequences) lacked requisite expert evidence so the Judge was entitled to disregard them.
4 Jun 2012
Applying section 7 and the LKW v DD framework the court identified and quantified assets at trial date, made factual findings on disputed titles and intentions: (1) the $680,000 from Husband's parents was a gift (not deductible) based on estate administration records and surrounding conduct; (2) the 1.2M Kowloon City sale proceeds belonged to the father (despite executed DFA/DA) because of the siblings' and father's contemporaneous intention and the subsequent transfer of 1,120,000 to family; (3) Husband failed to prove any 50:50 beneficial interest of his father in the HSBC investment accoun…
9 Jun 2009
Appeal allowed in part: the court reduced the wife's pension share from 40% to 30% and removed any entitlement to the husband's share options because the judge erred in awarding future potential capital on top of already generous capital awards; the percentage-of-income order was replaced by fixed monthly periodical payments (HK$45,000 to the wife until 31 July 2017 or remarriage; HK$25,000 to the child until 18 or end of secondary education, thereafter direct to the child during university); certain provisions must be expressed as undertakings rather than enforceable orders; capital payment…
15 Jun 2007
Court accepted respondent's evidence on bank movements, accounted certain expenditures against respondent's own share (legal costs and purchase costs of new property), calculated immediate distributable family assets at HK$4,197,915 (excluding pension), applied s.7 MPPO factors (age, duration, needs, contributions, health) and ordered a clean break by awarding the petitioner HK$2,076,000 lump sum, an HK$300,000 pension advance, a staged payment schedule with HK$1,000,000 immediate, sale of the former matrimonial property within 3 months with specified allocation of net proceeds, and a pension…
25 Oct 2000
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's assessment materially flawed (failure to account for wife's new earnings and errors in asset characterization), substituted its own assessment, reduced the monthly maintenance payable by the husband for the children to HK$20,000, limited the wife's entitlement in respect of the husband's gratuity to 50% of the gratuity payable at the end of his current contract, ordered transfer of the wife's interest in the endowment policy to the husband, and set aside the blanket firm disqualification while preventing a specific solicitor from acting.