Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Backdating maintenance

  • 1 Nov 2023

    BC v. MSH also known as H, MSO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 222
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13741/2019

    Court found wife’s HKD 1,080,100 ATM withdrawals were explained as family and living expenses and not wanton or concealed so not added back; wife’s AUD125,000 withdrawal lacked satisfactory explanation and was added back; husband’s disclosure on crypto investments was unsatisfactory but the court accepted the investments were bona fide market losses and not wanton or reckless, so no add-back of initial crypto sums; Australian MPF treated as unilateral and carved out but Australian bank funds and AUD125,000 were not proven to be non-matrimonial (AUD125,000 added back); total matrimonial pot as…

  • 12 Aug 2022

    ST otherwise SST v. MFP

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 168
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7467/2009

    The husband\'s variation summons was dismissed because he failed to establish a material decline in his ability to pay and engaged in material non-disclosure; the court therefore made a modest upward variation for the wife to HK$137,000 per month (CPI-linked, backdated to June 2020) and ordered direct payments to H of HK$23,000 per month (CPI-linked) while upholding the respondent\'s undertakings relating to the education fund and school/university fees (recitals J and N) but discharging specified ancillary undertakings (recitals F, H, K and part of L); costs were awarded to reflect the respo…

  • 14 May 2021

    KLT also known as KLP v. CP

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 102
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13969/2019

    Given the respondent's non‑participation and the evidence in the petitioner's Form E, the court accepted the petitioner's proposed split (60% of school fees and bus; 50% of personal and household share) and ordered the respondent to pay HK$48,500 per month for the child, backdated to June 2019, granted a clean break dismissing ancillary claims, and made an order nisi for the respondent to pay costs on an indemnity basis.

  • 28 Sept 2020

    WJT v. YATM

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 203
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP79/2017

    Applying s.10(2) GMO and the Re P principles the court conducted a broad commonsense assessment of V’s reasonable needs against the Father’s means, accepted that private schooling and reasonable nanny provision were appropriate, rejected many of the Father’s allegations of concealed wealth and unjustified gift assertions, found the Mother’s evidence on loans and depletion of assets credible on balance, and concluded it was fair and reasonable to (a) award periodical maintenance for V of US$8,000 per month backdated to 1 August 2018, (b) award a carer’s allowance to the Mother of US$2,500 per…

  • 17 Jul 2020

    QMY v. GSS

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 161
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP147/2012

    Issue estoppel based on the Mainland Maintenance Order was rejected as raised too late and because the Family Court must independently assess the child\'s welfare; having assessed parental resources and the child\'s reasonable needs in Guangzhou and Toronto the court held the father liable for 60% of the child\'s assessed needs, awarded a backdated lump sum HK$3,062,000 and ongoing maintenance of CAD6,172 per month (reducing to CAD5,172 from 1 Sept 2022) with a CAD1,000 carer\'s allowance component, and ordered costs against the father (order nisi).

  • 17 Nov 2017

    KB v. MS

    Citation
    KB v. MS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC173/2015

    Court assessed earning capacity and needs, found H has earning capacity of at least HK$12,000/month, accepted W's assessed needs and the Child's needs, concluded H should pay HK$2,500/month for the Child (backdated to 1 August 2012) with a lump sum make‑up of HK$125,500; found the joint expert valuation of H's 25% business interest (HK$42,006) binding and no distributable family capital beyond limited hidden funds which the court did not order shared; concluded the HK$338,800 from the joint account was spent on family expenses; found the wedding gold from H's mother was not returned and order…

  • 10 Oct 2014

    JJBGMK v. JPLY

    Citation
    JJBGMK v. JPLY
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP61/2011

    The court held that the Father's one-off HK$160,000 payment should be given limited credit (approximately HK$27,000) against backdated maintenance but no further set-off/order was necessary; the Mother's application for leave to appeal the costs order was refused for lack of reasonable prospect of success; none of the four summons resolved by undertakings warranted an adverse costs order against the Father and therefore no order as to costs was made for those summons; the Mother was ordered to pay the Father's costs of her leave application (to be taxed if not agreed) with a certificate for c…

  • 6 Dec 2011

    CPY v. KSF

    Citation
    CPY v. KSF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2256/2005

    The court accepted the Wifes evidence on her income and the childs needs, rejected the Husbands contention that there was an enforceable agreement to share child expenses equally, found the Husbands means sufficient to bear a larger share, and ordered an increase in maintenance with limited backdating as fair and reasonable in all the circumstances.