Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Lump sum maintenance

Legal area

Court

21 Nov 2025

L W S v. T M L T

Citation

[2025] HKFC 183
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMP129/2019

The court found ABA therapy was necessary for the child but the Mother failed to prove that Autism Circle was a reasonable provider or that she had paid the sums claimed to Autism Circle; Autism Circle\u2019s receipts and Mother\u2019s deposit slips were unreliable and rejected; HK$1.1m from Father treated partly (half assessed) as provision for the child and deducted; balancing the parties\u2019 means and child\u2019s best interests the court awarded a lump sum of HK$1,842,442 and periodical payments (HK$57,500/month from 15 Aug 2024 to 14 Dec 2024; HK$69,000/month from 15 Dec 2024 until maj…
27 Aug 2020

HCMJ v. HYM

Citation

[2020] HKFC 164
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12078/2014

The court found the husband had materially failed to disclose his true financial position, drew adverse inferences, estimated matrimonial assets at least HK$30,000,000, assessed the wife's and children's needs at HK$17,178,189.17, and ordered lump sum maintenance payments (and a transfer of the Land to the wife at nil consideration if the husband failed to pay) to satisfy those needs; the husband's application to vary MPS was dismissed.
4 Mar 2020

HMSE v. JJS

Citation

[2020] HKCA 139
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP272/2019

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show the judge had wrongly exercised her discretion or that there was an interest of justice meriting an appeal; the judge's assessment of accommodation, periodical payments and lump sum was supported by the record and the applicant failed to provide sufficient evidence to displace the judge's broad discretionary evaluation.
30 Sept 2019

吳對陳

Citation

[2019] HKFC 256
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1192/2016

Having adopted the valuation evidence for the former matrimonial home (HK$18,508,000), accepted the wife's disclosed bank/investment evidence (rounded to HK$8,000,000) and imputed dissipation of HK$700,000 for lavish purchases, the court determined matrimonial assets at HK$27,446,000, deducted the wife's debt to her daughter (HK$58,500) to reach distributable HK$27,387,500, applied the equal sharing principle yielding HK$13,693,750 each, credited the wife's existing assets (HK$28,000) and awarded a lump-sum maintenance payment by the husband to the wife of HK$13,666,000 payable within 30 days…
20 Sept 2019

朱對陳

Citation

[2019] HKFC 247
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1206/2006

The application to restore the 2012 judgment summons was dismissed because the applicant had participated in and received payments under a comprehensive 2017 settlement that resulted in her receiving sums exceeding the computed arrears; equitable estoppel and the public interest in finality bar reopening the claim, and costs were awarded to respondent.
24 May 2019

劉對方

Citation

[2019] HKFC 132
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC7160/2016

Ancillary maintenance application dismissed because parties were young, had no assets, each had earning capacity and independent economic support, marriage was short with minimal cohabitation, wife's asserted debts and need for a lump sum were not established and medical reports showed recovery; accordingly husband not liable to pay lump sum or periodic maintenance.
14 Sept 2016

RE TAM MEI KAM

Citation

RE TAM MEI KAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3777/2011

The application was dismissed because it sought relief in respect of a hypothetical situation and was premature and unnecessary given pending maintenance proceedings and the high likelihood the applicant would be discharged before any lump sum maintenance could be ordered; costs were ordered nisi against the applicant.
1 Apr 2015

RE TAM MEI KAM

Citation

RE TAM MEI KAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3777/2011

Funeral expenses constituted reasonable financial provision and were allowed (HK$170,500) payable by specified cheques; all other applications were dismissed because the existing periodical payments (HK$158,000/month) represented reasonable provision in all the circumstances, the applicant's medical certificates were inadmissible as expert evidence, awarding large lump sums would risk prejudice to other beneficiaries (notably the residuary legatee), and there was no change of circumstances warranting payment of rent arrears which would nullify prior orders.
1 Apr 2015

TAM MEI KAM v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

TAM MEI KAM v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2981/2004

Applicant was granted special maintenance of HK$170,500 for funeral and related religious services as reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance Ordinance; all other claims were dismissed because (a) medical certificates relied on were inadmissible under O 38 rr 37A and 37C(1), (b) the existing periodical payments (HK$158,000/month) constitute reasonable provision in all the circumstances, (c) awarding large lump sums would risk prejudicing the residuary beneficiary and would improperly negate the effects of the applicant's bankruptcy, and (d) there was no basis to vary the Income P…
22 Jan 2001

FMFT v. HKWE

Citation

FMFT v. HKWE
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV230/2000

The Court held the trial judge did not err in law or in the exercise of his discretion. On the facts the judge permissibly inferred the husband enjoyed access to substantial family resources and could practicably raise funds; the judge lawfully applied the concept of 'judicious encouragement' rather than unlawfully invading third‑party rights. The lump sum of HK$5,000,000 and the costs order were within the judge’s discretionary ambit and were not plainly wrong, so the appeal was dismissed.