Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Property division

Legal area

Court

30 Aug 2024

HYF v. CSL

Citation

[2024] HKFC 162
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14931/2014

Applying section 7 MPPO and LKW principles the court identified and adjusted the parties' asset ledgers (adding back quantified sums for non-disclosure and dissipation), concluded surplus exists after needs are met, applied the sharing principle but departed from equality because of W's greater contributions, H's gross misconduct (maintenance to mistress and child), abusive litigation in Shanghai and material non-disclosure; after adjustments the matrimonial pot was HK$174,930,171.36 and respondent (H) was awarded one quarter of the pot, payable as a lump sum of HK$22,508,000 by W within 28 d…
18 Oct 2023

SPY v. KYH by guardian ad litem, KWOK IAN CHIN YEUNG

Citation

[2023] HKFC 214
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7988/2007

Applying MPPO s7 and guidance in LKW v DD, the court assessed assets and needs, found available assets insufficient to meet both parties' needs so the sharing principle did not apply; having drawn an adverse inference from the respondent/GAL's failure to disclose, the court ordered sale of the matrimonial home and directed that, after deductions and subject to the Director of Legal Aid's first charge, any net sale proceeds be paid to the petitioner, and dismissed remaining ancillary relief claims.
12 Jun 2023

鄭對陳

Citation

[2023] HKFC 105
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12677/2019

Court applied the statutory s.7 factors and LKW five-step approach. Both parties failed full financial disclosure; court drew adverse inferences that the husband held undisclosed interests in SLL and mainland properties and that the wife understated receipts/proceeds. Starting from equal sharing but adjusting for proven nondisclosure and the husband's higher overall assets and earning capacity, the court awarded 65% of net sale proceeds of the matrimonial home (25D) to the wife and 35% to the husband, ordered sale within six months at not less than HKD 7,300,000, dismissed the wife's separate…
16 May 2023

胡對李

Citation

[2023] HKFC 87
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7853/2017

Court found wife exaggerated parts of her evidence but accepted both parties have earning capacity; husband's inheritance is non‑marital and to be retained by him; marital assets (excluding non‑marital inheritance and illiquid retirement funds until retirement) are to be realised primarily by sale of the former matrimonial home within six months of the absolute divorce; sale proceeds must first discharge mortgage and sale costs then pay HK$3,144,000 as lump sum for the two children and wife’s one‑year rehabilitative needs, then repay each party's certified debts, with any remainder divided eq…
8 Nov 2022

CCYL v. CCSR

Citation

[2022] HKFC 238
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13650/2019

Because the husband deliberately failed to give full and frank disclosure, the court drew adverse inferences that he had hidden assets (including Seychelles company and Interactive Brokers account), concluded he was a person with means (assets significantly more than HK$8,093,000), applied needs and sharing principles and ordered lump sum capital of HK$2,100,000 to wife, lump sum HK$480,000 for the daughter and monthly child maintenance of HK$49,000; interim maintenance discharged and costs to wife on indemnity basis.
26 May 2022

王對謝

Citation

[2022] HKFC 109
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3435/2015

Leave to appeal was refused because the judge had comprehensively considered the evidence and made permissible factual findings on funding, contributions and the transfer agreement; there was no realistic prospect of overturning those findings and the agreement provided a good reason to depart from equal property division. Consequently the application for leave lacked merit.
15 Mar 2022

雷對徐

Citation

[2022] HKFC 49
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1420/2019

The court applied the statutory factors and LKW v DD methodology, found no sufficient reason to depart from equal sharing of the matrimonial home, ordered sale of the home with net proceeds to be split 50:50, concluded that child reasonable needs (including current private school fees) justify maintenance set at HKD10,000 monthly payable by the father until the child is 18 or completes full‑time university, increased interim maintenance for a past period resulting in a HKD90,000 award, and directed specified reimbursements and a capitalised reserve to be lodged in court to secure future maint…
7 Mar 2022

JTMW v. NAV

Citation

[2022] HKFC 46
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8504/2017

Applying LKW v DD, the court found the parties' needs could be met, excluded the Danish house from the matrimonial pool, found no sufficient evidence of litigation misconduct or substantial continuing parental support to justify departing from equal division, and therefore applied an equal division of the distributable matrimonial assets resulting in payment of $450,430 to the wife and the balance to the husband.
5 Nov 2021

鄧對陳

Citation

[2021] HKCA 1659
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP192/2021

Leave to appeal and extension were refused because the applicant failed to show any arguable or reasonably likely success; the trial judge's factual findings and legal application (including exclusion of the inheritance and treatment of the matrimonial home) were not plainly wrong and deserved deference.
10 Dec 2020

LCP (前稱LCF及LP) 對 LS (前稱LLS)

Citation

[2020] HKCA 1011
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP152/2020

The Court refused the extension of time because the delay of over a decade was inordinate and unjustified, the applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay, and the proposed appeal had no real prospect of success (there was no property order to appeal, maintenance orders were either by consent or subject to variation via ancillary relief, and the decree absolute date relied upon by the applicant was incorrect).