Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Section 17 mppo

  • 6 Mar 2024

    MPY v. WYC

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 26
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3297/2022

    The court found the Wife demonstrated a bona fide claim that the transfer of 100% shareholdings from Merida to Super Matrix and Grand Goal defeated ancillary relief; Merida's deregistration did not, on the evidence, preclude it from holding assets; facts indicated Merida operated as the Husband's nominee such that joinder of the transferee companies was necessary and just and convenient to determine the proprietary issues; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to join Super Matrix and Grand Goal as 2nd and 3rd respondents (limited to ancillary relief) and made a costs order nisi agai…

  • 10 Feb 2023

    TKM also known as WTKM v. WHG

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 30
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5723/2021

    The wife demonstrated a bona fide arguable claim that the transfers (two shares and HK$1,000,000) may have depleted matrimonial assets and that the husband’s parents have competing claims; factual disputes as to the purpose of the transfers require trial of the section 17 claim; accordingly joinder of both parents is necessary and just and should be ordered, with costs to follow the event on the summons.

  • 23 Jan 2020

    YLHL v. YOWA AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 26
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10769/2017

    The judge accepted the Wife's evidence, applied the s.17(3) presumption to transfers within three years, found no valuable consideration or good faith by the 2nd son, concluded the Assignment (19 July 2017) and the 3rd, 4th and 5th transactions were made to defeat the Wife's claim and must be set aside, and ordered repayment and accounting as consequential reliefs while recognising the mortgagee's third party rights.

  • 23 May 2019

    AK v. MYNT

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 562
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP43/2019

    The Court refused leave to appeal because the Husband failed to demonstrate a reasonably arguable ground of appeal; the Family Court judge did not plainly err in granting an ex parte injunction given the Husband's secrecy, refusal to agree to escrow and the material effect of the mortgage on the Wife's interest, and there was no clear requirement that the Wife provide an undertaking as to damages.

  • 14 Mar 2018

    CLC v. SKW

    Citation
    [2018] HKCA 143
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV256/2015

    The judge's factual finding that the HK$400,000 was a family 'soft loan' or subsidy (not a legally enforceable loan subsequently forgiven) was open on the evidence; there was no evidence of any change of intention or of forgiveness intended to defeat the wife's ancillary relief claim. Therefore the wife failed to discharge the burden of proving the requisite intention under s17 and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 3 Jun 2016

    WRJ also known as WR v. CWCP

    Citation
    WRJ also known as WR v. CWCP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5599/2015

    The court found the applicant's s.17 MPPO and s.52B/inherent jurisdiction applications weak on the evidence insofar as he could not satisfy the court that dispositions would defeat his financial claim, but having regard to partial success (obtaining undertakings and agreement that withdrawn funds be added back to matrimonial assets), the parties' conduct and costs correspondence, the just outcome was to make no order as to costs up to and including 6 January 2016 and the consent summons dated 6 January 2016, and to order the applicant (husband) to pay the respondent's costs of the summons dat…

  • 31 Aug 2015

    LYL v. KKP

    Citation
    LYL v. KKP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15800/2012

    On the balance of probabilities the court was satisfied the respondent transferred his beneficial interests by the Deeds of Gift with the intention of defeating the petitioner's claim for financial provision under s17 MPPO; the transfers were set aside and consequential directions made; petitioner discharged burden of proof.

  • 9 Apr 2015

    FHM v. KYM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    FHM v. KYM AND OTHERS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13457/2013

    Leave to appeal refused because the husband failed to show a reasonable prospect of success: the validity of the 1985 Deed is not a sufficiently distinct and self-contained issue for a preliminary trial as it is interwoven with disputed facts (notably year of separation) and the court's mandatory s7 MPPO exercise; transfer to the Court of First Instance refused because the case did not present novel or special complexity warranting transfer and transfer would cause undue delay prejudicial to the parties.

  • 27 Feb 2015

    VE v. VRJ

    Citation
    VE v. VRJ
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7676/2011

    Court refused to grant the petitioner’s claim to restrain the respondent from dealing with the proceeds (para 5 dismissed) and allowed the respondent to withdraw sums to pay US tax (US$32,504) and HK$1,000,000 towards legal costs. The decision was based on (1) lack of evidence of intent to dissipate assets; (2) need to assess proportionality and equality of arms, having regard to overseas assets and the total asset pool; (3) the court’s discretion to limit payment out to a reasonable sum rather than accede to full sum requested ($2,800,000); and (4) no requirement for undertakings as to damag…