Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Carer’s allowance

  • 21 May 2025

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 89
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP67/2010

    The 2023 Order was an urgent, limited adjustment to meet immediate rental need and not a full final variation; there existed sufficient changed circumstances and justification to hear M’s full variation claim; under s.10 GMO the court may order lump sums and vary maintenance having regard to the child’s best interests and the payer’s means; leave under MPPO is not required for arrears recovery under the GMO; accordingly the court awarded arrears, reimbursement, reduced but continued carer’s allowance, authorised capitalisation of past and anticipated maintenance (with sums quantified), refuse…

  • 12 Feb 2025

    CPY v. TTKJ

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 27
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP148/2020

    Because the father deliberately failed to give full and frank financial disclosure and did not attend trial, the court drew adverse inferences as to undisclosed income/resources, assessed J’s reasonable needs by a broad‑brush method, awarded a carer’s allowance (initially HK$10,000 reducing to HK$3,000 after 6 months), fixed monthly maintenance (HK$26,000 March–August 2025; HK$24,600 thereafter), ordered a backdated lump sum to 1 November 2020 (HK$839,200 after credit), made an Attachment of Income Order to secure payments, and ordered costs on an indemnity basis against the father.

  • 10 Feb 2023

    CCMJ v. SSM formerly known as SKL

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 31
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP67/2010

    The court refused to consider the father's late Form E filed in defiance of an unless order, found no legitimate grounds of opposition sufficient to defeat the mother's variation summons, and varied the child's maintenance from HK$13,726 to HK$35,726 per month effective 1/9/2022 (incorporating a HK$22,000 monthly rental top-up) while leaving the mother's carer's allowance at HK$10,000; costs were awarded to the mother for the father's procedural default.

  • 3 Sept 2021

    WJT v. YATM

    Citation
    [2021] HKCA 1267
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP226/2020

    Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were challenges to the trial judge’s factual findings and evaluation of evidence without any showing of legal error or that the findings were plainly wrong, and therefore the intended appeal had no reasonable prospect of success under the statutory test for leave to appeal.

  • 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…

  • 2 Sept 2019

    LTM v. RJT

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 1004
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV31/2019

    The Court of Appeal upheld the judge’s exercise of discretion under s10(2)(b): where a sole primary carer lacks resources and has limited earning capacity, a finite carer’s allowance directed to sustaining the carer’s ability to care for the children is lawful; on the facts the two‑year allowance was a reasonable, proportionate order and did not impermissibly amount to maintenance of a former partner.

  • 7 Dec 2018

    WJT v. YATM

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 225
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP79/2017

    The court applied the O.24 r.7 prerequisites (relevance, existence, possession) and the Peruvian Guano relevance test, rejected blanket refusal based on asserted ability to pay, and ordered targeted discovery necessary to assess the Father’s financial means and the child’s pre‑separation standard of living while refusing requests that would be oppressive or unnecessary (e.g. formal valuation reports and certain company bank statements); specific questions in each party’s questionnaire were allowed or disallowed accordingly and timed disclosure was ordered with costs reserved as costs in the c…

  • 12 Oct 2018

    LHY v. ME

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 176
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP32/2018

    On a broad-brush interim assessment the court accepted parts of both parties' positions, concluded the mother's detailed claims were excessive or insufficiently evidenced, and ordered interim maintenance of HK$120,000 per month from 1 September 2018 (father to continue paying school fees). Litigation funding was refused and adjourned sine die for lack of clear evidence and justification. No backdating beyond the date the child relocated was ordered and no car provision was made. The court directed evidential record-keeping and gave specific directions on rental deposit; costs were awarded to…

  • 25 Jan 2018

    WJT v. YATM

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 24
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP79/2017

    The court held that a carer's (mother's) allowance may be awarded only as a component of child maintenance under s.10(2) GMO and does not require specific separate pleading in the Originating Summons; it is sufficient that the allowance is included and evidenced in the applicant's budget and pleadings and the substantive hearing may proceed on that basis.

  • 7 Apr 2017

    CWYW v. CCH

    Citation
    CWYW v. CCH
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP124/2013

    The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the Mother failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success or any other interest of justice: the trial judge’s factual findings, credibility assessments and discretionary exercise in assessing maintenance, carer’s allowance and capital items were supported by evidence and legal principle and were not plainly wrong; costs orders were made reflecting the sanctioned offer history and trial concessions, with specific allocation and taxation directions.