Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Living apart

  • 30 Oct 2023

    W v. H

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 224
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6843/2022

    The judge accepted the petitioner's evidence and disbelieved the respondent's inconsistent accounts; evidence established living apart (exclusive residence of petitioner and son in Kwun Tong cubicle, absence of sexual relations since 2017, minimal communications limited to child matters), the respondent failed to plead or prove grave financial hardship under s15B, and therefore the marriage had broken down irretrievably and decree nisi was granted with costs to the petitioner.

  • 13 Apr 2023

    周 對 陳

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 61
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8671/2020

    Although the parties lived at separate addresses, the applicant failed to prove a continuous two-year separation before the petition because there was ongoing monthly financial support, regular meetings and family interactions, and no evidence of mutual recognition that the marriage had ended; therefore s11A(2)(d) was not made out and the petition must be dismissed.

  • 6 Mar 1992

    CHIU CHEE KAN, PETER v. CHIU KUNG TIEN MING, TAMMY

    Citation
    CHIU CHEE KAN, PETER v. CHIU KUNG TIEN MING, TAMMY
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV121/1991

    The appeal was allowed because the trial judge misdirected himself in his rejection of a key witness (Teresa To) for plainly wrong reasons; that misdirection fatally undermined a credibility‑based decision on whether consortium had been determined. Given the centrality of that misassessment to the finding on s.11A(1)(e), the District Court decision was unsustainable and a retrial was ordered. The court reaffirmed that 'living apart' requires both physical separation and subjective cessation of recognition of the marriage, but deferred factual determination to a fresh trial.

  • 22 Sept 1979

    YUEN YU BIU v. YUEN NIP YULANDNA

    Citation
    YUEN YU BIU v. YUEN NIP YULANDNA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC35/1978

    The court found on the facts that the parties continued to share the same household and the petitioner's conduct did not amount to 'living apart' for the requisite continuous five‑year period under s.11A(1)(e); alternatively, even if the statutory period had been met, the petitioner’s proposals were insufficient to avoid the grave financial hardship to the respondent under s.15B, and therefore the petition must be dismissed.