20 Apr 2022
Application dismissed because the petitioner holds the vast majority of visible family assets (approximately 95% of net property value), factual disputes on income and source of funds require trial, and liquidation of readily realisable assets (eg, car park spaces) is the reasonable means to meet immediate needs rather than awarding MPS at this interim stage.
25 Jan 2019
Applying a broad‑brush assessment of immediate reasonable requirements against the Respondent’s ability to pay and reducing exaggerated items, the court allowed general household expenses for the wife at HK$103,017/month, apportioned HK$51,500/month to children (paid by Respondent) and set direct children expenses at HK$23,000/month; ordered interim maintenance of HK$37,250 per child/month (HK$74,500 total) and maintenance pending suit for wife of HK$25,750/month, with undertakings that Respondent continue to pay school fees, bus, insurances and X Club.
9 Mar 2018
The court applied the Currey principles and held that the Mother, as the applicant for litigation funding, failed to make adequate disclosure of her financial resources (notably the whereabouts of about HKD13.7m and supporting documentation), made an excessive budgetary claim, and therefore the exercise of discretion to refuse funding and to refuse leave to appeal was not plainly wrong; leave to appeal was denied and costs were ordered against the Mother.
10 Feb 2012
The judge did not misapply her discretion: given the wife's needs, the husband's current income/expenditure and incomplete disclosure of resources, an upward variation to $15,000 per month was justified; appellate court will not disturb the exercise of discretion absent error.
13 Oct 2009
The court accepted the husband had, on balance, satisfactorily accounted for the disposal of the compensation and found the only substantial asset to be the matrimonial home (market value ~HK$1.8m). Balancing the wife and child's need for housing and the husband’s age, disability and entitlement to a fair share, the just order was transfer of the property to the wife in return for a lump sum payment of HK$400,000 to the husband; ancillary claims otherwise dismissed and each party to bear their own costs except petitioner's legal aid costs to be taxed.