Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Financial provision for child

  • 30 Dec 2020

    RMH v. GY

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 275
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP38/2020

    Applying a broad‑brush assessment of the child's immediate and reasonable needs and the parties' resources, the court ordered interim maintenance of HKD 463,400 per month (HKD 240,000 for LA maintenance including vacation home, HKD 66,400 for minimum Hong Kong establishment, HKD 157,000 rent) and refused the mother's application for litigation funding on the basis she has deployable resources and potential third‑party support and her costs estimate was excessive.

  • 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…

  • 9 May 2014

    LCHJ v. SYMA

    Citation
    LCHJ v. SYMA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP28/2014

    Applying a broad-brush assessment of immediate accommodation need (HK$25,000 per month for mother and child; child's half HK$12,500) and specific monthly needs (HK$27,000), and having regard to parties' incomes and ability to pay, the Father was ordered to pay 75% of the child's immediate and specific needs on an interim basis, rounded to a monthly interim maintenance of HK$30,000, payable from 1 May 2014 pending further order.

  • 22 Jan 2013

    IDC v. SSA

    Citation
    IDC v. SSA
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP158/2011

    The court held that s.10(2)(a) GMO does not empower a court to order a lump sum for the long‑term purchase of accommodation because that provision is limited to immediate and non‑recurring needs or to meeting past liabilities; and s.10(2)(e) is limited to property to which the parent is already entitled so the court cannot order a parent to purchase and settle a new property for the child. Consequently the Mother’s claim for a lump sum to buy a property and for settlement of a new property failed for lack of jurisdiction. The court nevertheless exercised its discretion to make periodical main…

  • 25 Jun 2010

    LCTK AND ANOTHER v. TKKP

    Citation
    LCTK AND ANOTHER v. TKKP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC173/2009

    Adopting a broad brush interim approach, the court calculated the child's reasonable monthly needs at HK$17,500 and accepted the Respondent's undertakings to pay specified items by autopay and limited reimbursements; having regard to Respondent's means and immediate needs of the child the court made an interim order nisi requiring the Respondent to pay HK$17,500 per month to the 1st Applicant from 1 July 2010, with payments credited to a bank account designated by the 1st Applicant, and ordered the Respondent to comply with the stated undertakings; costs of the interim application ordered 50%…