Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Ancillary reliefs

  • 29 Oct 2021

    CTYM v. WYT

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 222
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15990/2017

    Given M was the disponee of the disputed 2010 transfers and there is a real dispute about whether transfers were coincidental, necessary or premeditated, the court exercised its discretion under Order 15 r6 to join M as 2nd Respondent limited to ancillary reliefs because her presence is necessary or just and convenient to adjudicate the substantive issues; delay, age and overseas residence did not outweigh the need for joinder and did not constitute sufficient prejudice to refuse joinder.

  • 7 Oct 2021

    LYI also known as YIL v. JJ also known as JJ

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 197
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2960/2018

    The husband failed to demonstrate any arguable ground of appeal: many grounds were irrelevant or confidential mediation material, he merely repeated failed trial submissions and did not identify any palpable error in the judge's findings or misapplication of law under s63A(2), therefore there was no reasonable prospect of success nor other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; leave was refused and costs awarded.

  • 8 Mar 2019

    LLY v. LKY

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 66
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6897/2003

    The option to purchase granted in the ancillary relief judgment lapsed upon expiry of the stipulated two‑month exercise period and could not be revived; W failed to give an adequate explanation for the substantial delay in applying for extension and the delay caused prejudice to H, so the court exercised its discretion under Order 3 Rule 5 to refuse extension and dismissed both parties' summonses (H's for non‑attendance, W's on merits of extension).

  • 15 Nov 2018

    LYY v. WYW

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 201
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11649/2015

    Respondent was personally served with the order to file Form E, failed to comply and his explanations were rejected; the failure was contumacious, caused substantial and potentially irremediable prejudice to the petitioner, and notwithstanding illness and partial disclosure the contemnor did not purge the contempt sufficiently; therefore a custodial sentence was required and suspension was inappropriate; respondent committed to custody for 8 weeks and ordered to pay petitioner's committal costs on indemnity basis.

  • 30 Jun 2016

    WMY v. CSK

    Citation
    WMY v. CSK
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17011/2011

    On the balance of probabilities the Husband failed to prove the existence of unpaid loans of ~HK$3.2m and the Wife's liability under the 13/12/2008 Loan Agreement; the court found the Husband diverted AMG receivables to SGFL and that SGFL and M&M are not family assets; the Wife did not conceal beneficial interest in MH Factory; the HK$600,000 from wife's maiden family is a financial liability of the Wife; given short marriage, post-separation accumulation and parties' earning capacities a walk-away outcome is fair and ancillary reliefs are dismissed, with a specific costs order in favour of t…

  • 24 Feb 2016

    TMLA v. WHW

    Citation
    TMLA v. WHW
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1096/2014

    Court applied the LKW v DD approach and s.7 MPPO, included assets and allowed limited add‑backs (agreed HK$400,000 and Husband's unexplained withdrawals converted to HK$59,000 and HK$39,000; included MPF/ORSO up to separation), rejected add‑backs for parental payments and rejected Wife's alleged loans and diminution without direct evidence, treated assignment of half the MH to Wife as presumed gift so pre‑marital contribution did not justify departure, applied equal division of the HK$9,410,000 pool resulting in equal shares of HK$4,705,000 and ordered Husband to pay Wife a lump sum of HK$4,0…

  • 18 Nov 2015

    CWK v. YCHS AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    CWK v. YCHS AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6082/2014

    Court held that prerequisites for specific discovery were met and that, on balancing relevance, necessity and prejudice, extensive historic disclosure was justified for audited financial statements of UB and SW, securities account statements and bank account statements from May 2011 onwards because the Husband was maintaining two families and the documents were necessary to determine possible diversion of assets and to dispose fairly of ancillary reliefs; requests for extended historic Amex and BOC card statements were refused except for missing and ongoing periods identified; costs awarded t…

  • 23 Jun 2015

    柯 v. 龔

    Citation
    柯 v. 龔
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12807/2013

    Summons to file the affidavit was dismissed because the sworn affidavit was put on the court file without leave, was procedurally and substantively inappropriate (did not address Section 7 factors), failed to comply with FDR and case management requirements, and the solicitor offered no satisfactory explanation for filing; costs ordered and separate hearing directed on wasted costs application.

  • 19 Sept 2014

    TWC v. LKL

    Citation
    TWC v. LKL
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8460/2012

    Court found petitioner lacked deployable assets and means to fund legal costs, there was no firm arrangement allowing funding by charging the outcome and legal aid was unlikely to provide the required two-counsel certificate; respondent has adequate resources. It was therefore fair and reasonable to order interim contribution to petitioner's future legal costs up to the FDR. The court awarded respondent monthly payments of HKD45,000 from 12 October 2014 to 12 January 2015 and made a nisi order for respondent to pay petitioner's costs of the application.

  • 4 Jun 2012

    CWL v. LWK

    Citation
    CWL v. LWK
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1100/2010

    Applying section 7 and the LKW v DD framework the court identified and quantified assets at trial date, made factual findings on disputed titles and intentions: (1) the $680,000 from Husband's parents was a gift (not deductible) based on estate administration records and surrounding conduct; (2) the 1.2M Kowloon City sale proceeds belonged to the father (despite executed DFA/DA) because of the siblings' and father's contemporaneous intention and the subsequent transfer of 1,120,000 to family; (3) Husband failed to prove any 50:50 beneficial interest of his father in the HSBC investment accoun…