Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Maintenance order

  • 14 May 2024

    林 對 蔡

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 102
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP248/2021

    Court accepted applicant's budgetary items but apportioned general household costs half to the child, accepted child's personal costs and reasonable extra activities, yielding a monthly need of HKD9,607; because respondent failed to disclose finances in breach of court orders the court imputed an ability to pay (supported by respondent's own statement of monthly casual earnings HKD18,900) and ordered respondent to pay HKD9,607 per month into applicant's CSSA bank account from 1 June 2024 until the child is 18 or ceases full‑time education, together with costs to the applicant.

  • 30 Jan 2024

    RMH v. GY

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 19
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMP38/2020

    The court exercised its discretion having regard to the benefit to the child, the significant wealth disparity, the conduct of both parties which increased costs, unnecessary expenditure and prior legal payments; it ordered the father to pay 60% of the mother's costs, with the $2,210,000 already paid to be taken into account, costs to be summarily assessed.

  • 13 Dec 2022

    RE LAM CHI HO

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 3717
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB4414/2022

    The petition was dismissed as an abuse of process because the court below had determined the debtor had the means to comply with the maintenance order and the debtor offered no appeal or changed circumstances to rebut that finding; the debtor evidently had other undisclosed financial means inconsistent with inability to pay; and the maintenance arrears are not provable in bankruptcy and thus cannot properly form the basis of a bankruptcy petition.

  • 30 Nov 2005

    CHENG CHUNG SHAN v. LI SIU MAN

    Citation
    CHENG CHUNG SHAN v. LI SIU MAN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP3291/2005

    The court adjourned the application and required the applicant to make best efforts to notify the respondent and to prove due diligence because the respondent prima facie has an interest in the property and must be heard before the applicant's name can be removed from the title.

  • 22 Feb 1972

    PAK LO SAI v. LUK KAM CHOI

    Citation
    PAK LO SAI v. LUK KAM CHOI
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1950/1971

    The September 1967 agreement superseded the earlier August agreement; clause 5 preserved the wife's right to apply for maintenance but only if a change in circumstances created a need; there was no evidence of such a change and the payments after the agreement were voluntary and unexpected, therefore the husband's cessation of payments did not constitute wilful neglect and the wife's claim is dismissed.