Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Maintenance under ipfdo

  • 3 May 2013

    RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

    Citation
    RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB144/2011

    The application was dismissed because (1) the maintenance claim in HCMP1919/2010 is a personal claim not vested in the trustees and therefore not something the trustees could be required to pursue or release, and (2) in respect of the other actions the trustees reasonably concluded the claims were not sufficiently meritorious and there was no indemnity or estate funding to meet potential adverse costs; such decisions fall within the trustees' proper discretion and are not perverse or clearly wrong warranting court interference under section 83.

  • 26 Aug 2011

    YIU LIN TEI v. LIU PUI LAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    YIU LIN TEI v. LIU PUI LAN AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1359/2008

    Plaintiff's proprietary claims (proprietary estoppel and part performance) failed for want of credible evidence of any binding promise, of expectation created or encouraged by the deceased, and of detrimental reliance; Plaintiff was not a wife within IPFDO s.2 but a dependant under s.3(1)(ix); applying s.5 factors the court awarded maintenance in lieu of transfer: monthly provision HK$40,000, converted to a lump sum of HK$7,358,400 less interim payment, with payment schedule and vacant possession orders, and costs split between parties.

  • 11 Apr 2011

    RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

    Citation
    RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCB144/2011

    The statutory conditions of s6 were satisfied (liquidated taxed costs exceeding the prescribed amount, unpaid, debtor unable to pay, and a valid personal service of the statutory demand with no application to set aside), and the court exercised its residual discretion against the Debtor because her outstanding claims were provisionally assessed as unmeritorious and her litigation conduct was frivolous and irresponsible; accordingly the bankruptcy order was made with costs.