Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Sale of matrimonial property

Legal area

Court

10 May 2024

HMC v. CWY

Citation

[2024] HKFC 87
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3129/2021

The Court held it has no power to vary the terms of a Consent Summons itself but may vary a Consent Order under s.11 MPPO; exercising that power the Court considered all circumstances (including pre-Order events) de novo, found Husband's inconsistent and obstructive conduct together with market decline frustrated the purpose of the Consent Order, and therefore varied the Consent Order to mandate updated valuations, expedited marketing, limited negotiation leeway (5% below updated market value), procedural steps for repeated valuations and sale, and an order for Husband to vacate within six mo…
10 Apr 2024

YY v. AW

Citation

[2024] HKFC 71
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15574/2017

Wife failed to comply with the Transfer Order and unreasonably evaded implementation; the court exercised its power under s6A MPPO to order an open market sale with a jointly funded independent valuation within 28 days, sale price not to be lower than that valuation, equal division of net proceeds after specified deductions, and ordered costs against the Wife on a party‑and‑party basis with certificate for counsel to be taxed if not agreed.
1 Dec 2023

YSG(YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2023] HKCA 1319
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP442/2022

The fresh expert evidence was excluded because the Wife failed to show it could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence; the proposed grounds of appeal were not reasonably arguable given the trial judge's well-supported factual findings rejecting the 'black hole' theory and accepting the Duxbury SJE's analysis; the costs order was within the trial judge's discretion because the Wife unreasonably persisted with unsupported allegations justifying a 20% indemnity costs award; accordingly leave to appeal and fresh evidence applications were dismissed.
2 Jun 2022

YSG (YX) v. LYAG

Citation

[2022] HKFC 114
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15288/2015

The Court rejected the Wife's allegation of hidden/dissipated assets for lack of reliable forensic evidence and timeliness; accepted SJE valuations (including Singapore properties and wine); found net matrimonial assets approx HK$248.19M; applied the sharing principle with no departure from equal division; ordered sale of the two Singapore properties with proceeds divided equally; awarded the Wife a capital adjustment (reduced to HK$53,500,000) payable by the Husband in staged lump sums; ordered child maintenance of HK$140,000/month (HK$70,000 per child) with specified reductions during natio…
23 Jul 2021

YQCDG v. YMML

Citation

[2021] HKFC 132
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC17035/2012

Applying the statutory framework in MPPO ss6 and 7 and the LKW v DD multi‑step approach, the court (i) rejected the writ of subpoena practice and required Order 38 r2(3) for attendance; (ii) disallowed several of H's asserted creditor liabilities where H failed to prove absence of express repayment terms and thus failed to establish implied 'payable on demand' terms, but accepted the running account loan to H's next friend (head of chambers) applying Clayton's Case; (iii) adopted the agreed earlier valuation for the KL Property (RM880,000) and rejected the late valuation report for lack of le…
23 Mar 2020

TCP v. KLS

Citation

[2020] HKFC 67
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC9304/2015

The court found the matrimonial pot totalled HK$12,915,900 after adding back identified sums. The judge accepted the husband used some proceeds legitimately but found deficiencies in both parties' disclosure; quantified additions of HK$1,450,000 from the KF Property and HK$940,000 net from the Flat H (after deduction of legal costs) and HK$275,000 from the Flat G producing total add-backs of HK$1,725,000. Applying MPPO s.7 principles, after assessing needs and surplus, the court applied the sharing principle equally. Consequential orders: sale of four properties within six months; equal divis…
18 Nov 2019

LWC v. ACWD

Citation

[2019] HKFC 293
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC3735/2016

Petitioner failed to establish any substantial or material change in circumstances not contemplated at the time of the consent summons, provided no cogent medical evidence of incapacity at signing, and produced unreliable evidence of sale efforts; accordingly the court declined to vary the consent order, dismissed the Amended Summons, awarded costs to the respondent and endorsed a penal notice on the original consent order.
16 May 2017

MWY v. HWM

Citation

MWY v. HWM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP120/2017

Leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to show any reasonable prospect of success: the judge properly exercised discretion by considering the needs of the wife and children, the parties’ financial resources, the husband’s late and incomplete disclosure which warranted adverse assumptions about his income, and there was no live issue about sale of the property as the husband did not appeal that dismissal; costs and backdating were within the judge’s discretion.
20 Mar 2017

BKSH nee KSH v. JAB

Citation

BKSH nee KSH v. JAB
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC5366/2008

Leave to appeal is refused because the husband failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice warranting an appeal: the judgment faithfully implemented an earlier full and final settlement, the husband produced no new credible evidence of legal error or prejudice, procedural complaints were raised late and the contested issues were within the trial judge's proper exercise of discretion.
21 Feb 2017

胡對蔣

Citation

胡對蔣
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14129/2005

The prior delay for the son's education had been effectively honored and the son had ceased full‑time tertiary study and repeatedly failed to obtain medical admission; the wife's housing and financial needs could be met from her substantial share of sale proceeds and by available maintenance provisions; therefore it was just and appropriate to order sale with conditions. The court exercised its power under Cap.192 s.6A to make a further order requiring vacant possession within six months and sale at market price not below HKD5,300,000 with proceeds distributed under the 2008 consent order.