6 Jul 2018
CCCR v. CLL
- Citation
- [2018] HKFC 95
- Court
- Family Court
- Case number
- FCMC17824/2013
The court found only one disposition met the s17 presumption and was not satisfactorily explained: HK$100,000 transferred to LSY was set aside and added back to matrimonial assets. Other contested transfers were found to be repayments, gifts or household expenditures and not made with intent to defeat the ancillary claim. The matrimonial asset pool was identified as Carpark No.4X (valued no less than HK$2,200,000) plus bank balances and added‑back/hidden assets totalling HK$2,010,549.12. Applying the LKW sharing principle and having found no good reason to depart from equality, the court orde…