Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Short marriage

  • 3 Jul 2015

    AVT then known as MAM v. VNT

    Citation
    AVT then known as MAM v. VNT
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV234/2014

    On appeal the court held the original award was erroneous in principle insofar as it provided HK$7.2m for purchase of a flat; applying LKW/WLK guidance the wife's needs were assessed at HK$5.5m with an additional HK$500,000 for sharing from largely non-matrimonial assets, producing a substituted final capital award of HK$6,000,000; the expert's adoption of a going-concern valuation assuming eventual disposal of the Kowloon Centre asset was justifiable and no further minority discount was required as facts indicated a quasi-partnership context.

  • 3 Nov 2009

    CR v. MRQ

    Citation
    CR v. MRQ
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2706/2008

    Given the short childless marriage, the husband’s greater premarital wealth and inadequate disclosure, the court attributed a proportioned marital acquest from property profits (one third) and awarded the wife a clean break lump sum of HK$5,000,000 to reflect (a) her 50% share of the attributable property profit (approx HK$2.35m), (b) a limited share of increase in business assets given incomplete disclosure, and (c) needs and limited compensation for loss of career opportunity.

  • 22 Jun 2009

    JEL v. ZM

    Citation
    JEL v. ZM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14025/2008

    On the facts the judge found the wifes adjusted monthly needs just over HK$20,000 and her own income approximately HK$8,700; the husbands assessed income including bonus and rental was about HK$134,000 with outgoings about HK$126,000; on a broad-brush assessment the husband can reasonably afford HK$12,000 per month; therefore the interim order of 30 March 2009 continuing payment of HK$12,000 per month on the first day of each month pending further order was appropriate and was continued; costs reserved for later determination.

  • 15 Dec 1995

    CLARE BARONESS BAILLIEU v. JAMES WILLIAM LATHAM BARON BAILLIEU

    Citation
    CLARE BARONESS BAILLIEU v. JAMES WILLIAM LATHAM BARON BAILLIEU
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV149/1995

    The Court allowed the appeal on quantum, holding that trustees possess a discretion to advance capital in appropriate 'special circumstances' which can be taken into account as a realistic source of funds; the petitioner was found capable of ultimately making her own way but deserving of a lump sum (clean break) increased from A$350,000 to A$505,000 to reflect needs, limited employability, and realistic access to trustee advances without undermining trust integrity.