Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Business valuation

  • 19 Sept 2023

    F, CWP v. K, TF

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 183
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC475/2021

    Applying the LKW steps the court identified a matrimonial pot of HK$5,151,596.74, allowed specified addbacks and adjustments, found the Wife made a greater initial financial contribution to the FMH and greater childcare contribution, found the Husband has higher earning capacity, and therefore applied the sharing principle but departed from equal division to award 65% of the matrimonial pot to the Wife. The court ordered child maintenance from the Husband of HK$16,400 per month, required sale of the FMH with the Husband to receive HK$1,565,378 from sale proceeds, and dismissed other ancillary…

  • 2 Feb 2015

    CCYM v. PWH

    Citation
    CCYM v. PWH
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1544/2013

    Court valued the parties' assets as a single pool of approximately HKD 4,986,216, included the wife's pre‑marital savings and Canadian property in the asset base but excluded the wife's inheritance as non‑matrimonial (but acknowledged it as a future resource); accepted that the husband's companies are illiquid and primarily income‑producing and accepted the husband's valuation for present purposes; applied a sharing approach but departed from strict equality because each party should retain assets held in their sole names and on account of premarital contributions and commercial realities; or…

  • 4 Aug 1995

    KEIKO MARUKO v. YOSHIO MARUKO

    Citation
    KEIKO MARUKO v. YOSHIO MARUKO
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV32/1995

    The Court dismissed the husband's appeal because the valuation evidence for the company was not undermined, the judge properly considered income, earning capacity and the wife's contributions, there was no evidence the award would cripple the business, and deficiencies in disclosure did not justify increasing the award on mere inference; the security and amended payment schedule for the second tranche were appropriate and the cross‑appeal failed.