Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Litigation funding

  • 22 Mar 2024

    LM v. FW

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 41
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7076/2022

    The court treated the prenuptial agreement as prima facie valid but only as one factor; it must assess reasonable needs, payer's ability and recipient's resources and be cautious where validity of the agreement is disputed. Applying that approach the court found the Petitioner had immediate need and the Respondent ability to pay, awarded interim maintenance to the Petitioner (HK$406,000/month) and for the Child (HK$232,000/month), but refused an award for litigation funding given available assets and third-party support and that Currey criteria were not met.

  • 9 Feb 2024

    WW v. LPQ formerly known as LLN and LSM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 29
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8485/2019

    On the evidence and broad‑brush analysis the Court was satisfied the 1st Respondent's financial position had not improved and she could not reasonably re-engage solicitors from her own resources or obtain public funding in time; the Petitioner has capacity to meet a reasonable award given available surrender value of insurance policies exceeding HK$5,000,000, and therefore the summons for litigation funding was allowed in the sum of HK$500,000 with specified payment schedule and strict conditions to protect the funds and final accounting.

  • 20 Oct 2023

    KAR (aka RA, KA) v. NSL

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 210
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11862/2021

    The court accepted that the Petitioner was entitled to interim maintenance and litigation funding but rejected the Petitioner's inflated estimates for post-relocation living costs in India as unsupported; backdating was limited to the date of the present application (20 September 2022). The court fixed reasonable monthly needs in Hong Kong at HK$19,000 for the Petitioner and HK$17,000 for the child, awarded litigation funding of HK$17,000 per month until the FDR hearing, and ordered the Respondent to continue to pay mortgage instalments, utility bills, management fees, the child’s school fees…

  • 19 Oct 2023

    HYM v. LKK

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 209
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7571/2022

    On a broad brush assessment the petitioner was not wholly financially dependent and has earning capacity beyond the claimed HK$2,000; she failed to prove entitlement to litigation funding under the Currey test; respondent demonstrated ability to pay a limited sum for accommodation and utilities; therefore a limited MPS of HK$16,500 per month was reasonable and ordered pending further order; costs of the summons reserved (costs order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days if not varied).

  • 3 Jul 2023

    AD (aka AT) v. RT

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 1717
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC1/2022

    The court varied the 2020 order on the basis that the petitioner cannot reasonably obtain appropriate legal representation without further funding and that the respondent has the means to provide reasonable interim litigation funding and maintenance: litigation funding fixed at HK$120,000 per month from 1 October 2022; petitioner MPS set at HK$32,000 per month from 1 December 2022 to 31 March 2023 and HK$12,000 per month from 1 April 2023; interim maintenance for the child fixed at HK$42,000 per month from 1 December 2022; reasonable holiday and counselling costs included in the maintenance f…

  • 15 May 2023

    FYK v. HCC

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 84
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7022/2021

    The wife failed to demonstrate adequate grounds to vary the prior costs order nisi. Although she obtained a higher MPS than the husband's offer, she failed on the separate claim for litigation funding and gave insufficient evidence for it; applying the court's broad discretion in family matters and the offers made, the variation application is dismissed, the earlier costs order nisi is made absolute, and the wife is ordered to pay the husband's costs of the variation summons forthwith, to be taxed if not agreed.

  • 31 Mar 2023

    LAM YEE HUNG v. CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 908
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA764/2015

    The judge accepted that the pattern and timing of deposits, documentary remittance evidence and surrounding circumstances made it likely the monies were placed with the Foundation pursuant to arrangements amounting to loans rather than spontaneous donations, and that Lam had discharged the burden of proof to establish an enforceable entitlement to repayment.

  • 20 Mar 2023

    CHEN YUNG NGAI KENNETH AND ANOTHER v. CHONG HING BANK LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 826
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB3819/2011

    The Trustees demonstrated reasonable grounds to suspect that the specified accounts related to the bankrupt or his nominees and that the account opening records and transaction documents were reasonably necessary for the Trustees' functions; accordingly production orders under s29 BO were appropriate in respect of certain accounts. However, as a general rule account holders should be given notice or be joined unless exceptional circumstances exist; absent such circumstances the court will require notice before making orders. Applying those principles, production orders were granted against Ch…

  • 20 Mar 2023

    WLK by MYW her next friend v. CCIW AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 58
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP176/2019

    The summons for litigation funding is dismissed because the applicant failed to satisfy the stringent requirement of establishing a very clear case of immediate need for financial assistance under section 7: the evidence was inadequate (no documentary proof of borrowing or inability to continue borrowing, absence of corroboration from family members who had been providing funds), no attempt to seek legal aid was shown, and the sums sought were disproportionate to the estate and other beneficiaries' interests; accordingly the court declined to exercise its discretion to order interim litigatio…

  • 10 Jan 2023

    WW v. LPQ formerly known as LLN and LSM AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 9
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8485/2019

    The husband’s application to vary the MPS was dismissed because he failed to provide full and frank disclosure and his asserted change of financial circumstances was not credible or internally consistent; the wife was entitled to interim litigation funding, limited to a rounded figure of HKD 500,000 to carry her to trial and mediation, payable by the husband, and the husband must pay the costs of the applications to be summarily assessed.