Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Section 7 mppo
  • 24 Aug 2023

    NS v. NK

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 171
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8255/2022

    The court refused the Husband's unprocedural late evidence except for a limited update on employment, found on the evidence that the Husband has an earning capacity of not less than HK$50,000 per month, calculated the children's reasonable monthly needs and ordered equal sharing of those needs resulting in maintenance of HK$5,500 per child (HK$27,500 total), and ordered costs against the Husband.

  • 15 Feb 2013

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV18/2012

    Third‑party financial assistance can be treated as part of a spouse’s financial resources under s7(1)(a) MPPO where, on the evidence, the assistance has been provided and is likely to continue in the foreseeable future; courts must not use a separate doctrine of 'judicious encouragement' to frame orders that effectively pressure non‑parties or usurp their discretion. Applying these principles, the Court upheld the Court of Appeal’s findings that the husband had underutilised earning capacity and benefitted from continuing parental support, justifying increased periodical payments and a lump s…

  • 12 Nov 2010

    LKW v. DD

    Citation
    LKW v. DD
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACV16/2008

    C v C is overruled; when applying section 7 MPPO courts should adopt the White v White / Miller/McFarlane framework: ascertain assets, assess needs (often dispositive), if surplus apply an equal‑sharing yardstick and depart only for good reason after considering source of assets, duration, contributions, conduct (only if obvious and gross) and compensation (generally intrinsic to sharing); apply broad‑brush discretion and articulate reasons for any departure from equality.

  • 18 Nov 2005

    L v. L

    Citation
    L v. L
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC1/2003

    The court held that the 2000 and 2001 agreements were properly and permanently intended partial settlements (partial Edgar) and should be given substantial effect; Section 7 must be applied broadly to achieve fairness rather than imposing a rigid equality presumption or a reasonable-requirements ceiling; alleged bigamy did not disentitle the Wife because the earlier spouse had been absent for seven years and there was no proof the Wife knew he was alive; non-disclosure by the Wife justified adverse inference but not wholesale reopening of the agreements; valuation disputes and expert shortcom…