Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Maintenance arrears

  • 22 May 2024

    楊 對 曾

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 416
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP170/2023

    Leave to appeal was refused because the application was filed late without an acceptable explanation, the proposed grounds lacked a real prospect of success (many complaints were either re‑litigation of fact findings, new matters not raised at trial, or matters the judge had considered), and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to hear the appeal; accordingly the summons dated 24 April 2023 was rescinded.

  • 23 Dec 2022

    CCH v. CCL

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 282
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3480/2016

    Leave to enforce arrears for the period Jan 2018–Mar 2020 is refused because the wife failed to demonstrate special circumstances under s.12 Cap 192: her limited WhatsApp reminders, a single solicitor demand in June 2019 and prolonged inaction thereafter did not justify enforcing stale arrears; receipt of modest payments from husband's parent did not excuse delay; the legal burden rests on the applicant to act within a year.

  • 26 Jan 2022

    CCMJ v. SSM (formerly known as SKL)

    Citation
    [2022] HKCA 173
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV84/2021

    The Father was in deliberate and continuing contempt for non-payment of maintenance and carer's allowance; that contempt materially impeded the course of justice and no other realistic and effective remedy existed. A proportionate Hadkinson order was therefore justified: the appeal and associated summons would not be heard unless the Father paid the specified outstanding sum of HKD 409,616 by 28 February 2022 and made the February 2022 monthly payments of HKD 13,726 (N) and HKD 10,000 (Mother) and continued to pay those monthly sums when due; failure to comply would result in the appeal and s…

  • 5 Nov 2021

    CWCV v. LCKC

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 228
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7162/2013

    The court rejected the respondent's claim of an oral settlement as inherently improbable and lacking particulars; accordingly there was no material non-disclosure by the petitioner in her application for the charging order. The duty of full and frank disclosure applies to ex parte applications and does not require the petitioner to disclose the alleged subsequent oral agreement after the charging order nisi where the respondent had notice and opportunity to oppose; therefore the respondent's application to discharge the charging order must be dismissed.

  • 30 Sept 2015

    沈 對 李

    Citation
    沈 對 李
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP33/2013

    The court found the respondent had no reasonable excuse, had disposed of and transferred funds (including sale proceeds and transfers to his brother), failed to properly disclose assets and deliberately refused to comply with the maintenance and lump‑sum orders; accordingly committal for 28 days was warranted to enforce the judgment.

  • 8 May 2015

    林 對 郭

    Citation
    林 對 郭
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15762/2010

    The court found the debtor had access to funds in periods when payments could have been made, rejected his explanations (income reduction, employer debt, medical condition, bankruptcy) as either unproven or willful evasion, and concluded his conduct amounted to deliberate non‑compliance with the maintenance order; committal for three months and an order for payment of all judgment summons costs were therefore justified.

  • 11 Feb 2015

    W v. F

    Citation
    W v. F
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC809/2004

    Leave was granted to enforce arrears older than 12 months because special circumstances existed (post‑judgment appeal, mediation and attempts to settle); the respondent had the ability to pay given substantial assets and wilfully failed to do so after the Court of Appeal decision of 27 March 2012; interest is payable under s53A and there was no timely application to challenge it; the respondent was found in contempt and a one‑week custodial term was imposed, suspended on payment of the full judgment debt and costs by 30 September 2015, with the Sai Kung property held as security and the exist…

  • 29 Jul 2013

    RE CHEUNG HOK CHOI

    Citation
    RE CHEUNG HOK CHOI
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB3629/2013

    Dismiss petition because alleged Mainland debt lacked any evidential foundation; maintenance arrears are not ordinarily a provable bankruptcy debt and creditor opposes the petition; debtor has not fully disclosed assets and family court found concealment of significant assets; and making a bankruptcy order would likely complicate and potentially obstruct the court-ordered transfer of the matrimonial home.

  • 21 Feb 2005

    K v. K

    Citation
    K v. K
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC2/2004

    Arrears that fell due more than 12 months before proceedings were remitted because the applicant failed to show good reason or special circumstances to depart from s.12; however, because the judgment debtor had persistently refused to pay and there were reasonable grounds to believe he would not make punctual payments, the court ordered under s.23(1) Crown Proceedings read with Pensions Ordinance s.12(1) and RHC O.77 r.16 that the Director of Accounting Services pay such portion of the debtor's government pension as was necessary to satisfy arrears since 1 January 2003 and to secure current m…