Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Hidden assets

  • 4 Aug 2023

    MPY v. WYC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 151
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3297/2022

    Leave to appeal was refused because the husband failed to demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; the court did not err in treating the respondent's allegation of misappropriation as a potential hidden asset for ancillary relief (which would be added back to the matrimonial pool if proved) and concluded company rights of HTSP and the reflective loss rule do not defeat the respondent's ancillary claim at this stage nor justify transfer to the Court of First Instance.

  • 14 May 2019

    NSK v. KRW

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 126
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7594/2015

    Leave to appeal refused because the intended appeal did not have a reasonable prospect of success under s63A DCO and the issues raised did not demonstrate an error of law or clear misapplication of judicial discretion; the appropriate remedy for changed financial circumstances is an application to vary maintenance.

  • 6 Jul 2018

    CCCR v. CLL

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 95
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC17824/2013

    The court found only one disposition met the s17 presumption and was not satisfactorily explained: HK$100,000 transferred to LSY was set aside and added back to matrimonial assets. Other contested transfers were found to be repayments, gifts or household expenditures and not made with intent to defeat the ancillary claim. The matrimonial asset pool was identified as Carpark No.4X (valued no less than HK$2,200,000) plus bank balances and added‑back/hidden assets totalling HK$2,010,549.12. Applying the LKW sharing principle and having found no good reason to depart from equality, the court orde…

  • 17 Nov 2017

    KB v. MS

    Citation
    KB v. MS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC173/2015

    Court assessed earning capacity and needs, found H has earning capacity of at least HK$12,000/month, accepted W's assessed needs and the Child's needs, concluded H should pay HK$2,500/month for the Child (backdated to 1 August 2012) with a lump sum make‑up of HK$125,500; found the joint expert valuation of H's 25% business interest (HK$42,006) binding and no distributable family capital beyond limited hidden funds which the court did not order shared; concluded the HK$338,800 from the joint account was spent on family expenses; found the wedding gold from H's mother was not returned and order…

  • 7 Aug 2017

    TWF v. HWKR

    Citation
    TWF v. HWKR
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16534/2015

    Applying the statutory power to vary and weighing immediate reasonable needs against husband's demonstrated means, the court allowed a partial variation: wife's monthly MPS increased from HK$61,000 to HK$99,000 (effective 10 July 2017) reflecting allowed monthly budget items (total HK$74,000) plus an allowance of HK$25,000 for repayment of friends/relatives debts; the husband need not increase monthly legal-costs provision now beyond existing HK$50,000 but gave an undertaking to pay HK$50,000 per month for legal costs within 7 days of receipt of his share of Sentosa House sale proceeds, and t…

  • 22 Mar 2017

    湯 對 徐

    Citation
    湯 對 徐
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15201/2013

    The court quantified total matrimonial assets at HK$3,379,980.34, held the Jing Cai Street property to be matrimonial (value HK$2,540,000), found husband concealed savings (treated as husband’s assets of HK$300,000 and HK$130,000), applied the equal sharing principle and ordered an immediate division of non‑property assets with deferred sale of the matrimonial home (transfer of 50% title to wife pending sale by 30 Nov 2025), ordered husband to pay wife lump sums totalling HK$439,426.56 (HK$313,048.56 and HK$126,378) within one month of the absolute divorce, continuing monthly child maintenanc…

  • 8 Apr 2016

    RE MUI KWOK KEUNG

    Citation
    RE MUI KWOK KEUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB6633/2015

    The petition is dismissed because the debtor failed to discharge the burden of proving he is unable to pay his debts: there is a prima facie case that assets (the Sum transferred to Madam Chan and the 50% beneficial interest in the Property) remain beneficially owned by the debtor and he produced no evidence of legitimate consideration for the transfers, so he cannot show inability to pay the enforceable Compensation Order.