Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Dissipation

  • 8 Jun 2021

    程 對 陳

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 114
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13480/2016

    The court held there was insufficient evidence that the respondent's remortgage and subsequent expenditure amounted to the sort of wanton, deliberate dissipation that justifies add-back; therefore remortgage proceeds were not re-attributed. The court accepted the agreed current market value and bank evidence of mortgage balance, fixed matrimonial assets at HK$1,800,000, applied equal sharing to give the applicant HK$900,000, reduced that by HK$375,000 for concealed savings, and ordered the respondent to pay the applicant HK$525,000 within one month.

  • 7 Aug 2014

    VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    VELATEL GLOBAL COMMUNICATIONS INC AND ANOTHER v. CHINACOMM LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1978/2011

    The court dismissed the defendants' appeal and refused to order security for costs because, in the exercise of its broad discretion, the defendants' conduct (including findings of dissipation in earlier judgment, tactical withdrawal of the Counterclaim to bolster the security application, and a failure to prosecute or promptly abandon an appeal) demonstrated the application was tactical and not a genuine protective need; there was no clear basis on the merits to outweigh those factors and the pending/previous appeal further militated against ordering security.

  • 17 Dec 1986

    SUTRISNO WINATA v. WIDARTO AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SUTRISNO WINATA v. WIDARTO AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA6700/1986

    Hunter J found the plaintiff failed to make full and frank disclosure to the ex parte judge; there was no real risk of removal or dissipation of assets in Hong Kong (funds remained intact or were moved for protection), proprietary tracing was impossible due to mixing, and therefore the ex parte Mareva injunction and related orders should be discharged.