Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Lump sum claims

  • 29 Dec 2025

    TCTE v. SM

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 204
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP98/2010

    Court accepted jurisdiction by defendant\'s participation; found significant change of circumstances since 2011; after assessment of the minor\'s reasonable monthly needs (HK$48,878.15) and the parties\' means (father substantially better resourced, mother limited present income but with earning potential and third‑party support likely to continue), the appropriate apportionment is 75% father and 25% mother, producing a periodical payment by father of HK$36,658.6 pcm, linked to Canada CPI, backdated to 20 December 2023, with specified shortfall payable, and most lump sum claims refused for la…

  • 10 Oct 2023

    RMH v. GY

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 204
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP38/2020

    Applying a broad brush assessment and having discounted inflated claims, the court allowed direct undertakings from the father for school and medical expenses and ordered periodical maintenance of HK$250,000 per month (rounded from an assessed total of HK$241,040) to reflect the child's reasonable needs and the father's wealth, with lump sum/set-up claims mostly rejected as refundable to father given mother’s overspending and lack of justification.

  • 22 Sept 2020

    T v. W

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 199
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP38/2007

    The court concluded that the minors' reasonable monthly needs increased modestly and awarded maintenance increased to HK$52,000 per month and a single lump sum of HK$100,000 for setup/moving costs because (a) specified expense items were reasonable in quantified amounts, and (b) the father wilfully failed to give full, frank and clear financial disclosure, permitting an adverse inference that he can afford the revised payments; other lump sum claims by the mother and the father's applications (downward variation and undertaking orders) lacked merit or evidence and were dismissed.