21 Jun 2022
Husband did not satisfy the court that his unemployment amounted to a material change of circumstances because he failed to make genuine, adequate efforts to obtain alternative employment, he retained earning capability, and family financial assistance continued or was likely to continue; accordingly the consent maintenance order was not varied and the summons was dismissed.
12 Apr 2022
Court found respondent retained sufficient resources and realistic prospect of third‑party assistance and future earnings; respondent had exaggerated expenses and had access to parents' and wife's support; consent order was entered with advice and must be upheld unless good cause shown. Accordingly variation to reduce periodical payment modestly was justified but not to the extent sought by respondent; ordered periodical payment of HKD10,000 per month and monthly lump‑sum instalment of HKD32,000 from 1 September 2020, discharged family car undertaking and offset prior payments; respondent to…
8 Nov 2019
On the balance of probabilities the Husband has been receiving and is likely to continue receiving at least HK$5,000 per month in third‑party assistance (principally from mother/elder sister), his own income averages about HK$20,000/month, the Daughter’s international school fees are a reasonable need, and in applying s.7 MPPO and LKW v DD steps the fair outcome is to order HK$13,000/month for the Daughter and nominal maintenance to the Wife while denying substantive periodical maintenance to the Wife beyond that.
20 Sept 2019
The court applied the LKW v DD stepwise approach: after ascertaining resources (with a 50% liquidity discount on pensions), it found surplus assets and applied the sharing principle with departures for fairness. It treated half of the husbands post-separation discretionary bonus and half of the deferred share payment as matrimonial, excluded pre-marital securities and pensions as non-matrimonial on the facts, allowed a 5% uplift of the matrimonial share to the wife by way of compensation for relationship-generated disadvantage, ordered a capital clean-break lump sum of HKD 7,366,200 to the w…
8 Apr 2014
Court found parental financial assistance had largely ceased and was unlikely to resume in the foreseeable future except limited agreed $40,000$50,000 for the children; husbands major asset was an illiquid 25% minority shareholding in MP valued at HK$23,197,000 which could not be realised. Applying s.7 and LKW v DD steps the court assessed resources and needs, found a shortfall, applied a sharing approach but departed from equal division because the bulk of assets were external non-matrimonial family-gift/enterprise related. Court awarded the respondent 25% of overall matrimonial pot numeri…
15 Feb 2013
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…