Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Matrimonial property

  • 7 Aug 2023

    PMCL also known as LMC also known as KLMC v. AKK also known as KAK AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 154
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11521/2015

    ZL was validly joined because there is a bona fide proprietary claim as to the beneficial ownership of the SSEL shares and ZL, who claims beneficial ownership, is a necessary party for effective adjudication; service by ordinary post was not proven but valid personal service occurred on 21 February 2023 and the FMH address constituted a last known address; there was a serious issue to be tried and a real risk of dissipation (given H's conduct, continued control as director and unexplained low-value transfer) so interim injunctions restraining H and ZL from dealing with the SSEL shares and rel…

  • 16 Mar 2023

    LCC v. LTLA

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 416
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV281/2022

    The Court granted a stay of execution pending determination of the appeal because the appellant demonstrated arguable grounds and provided credible evidence that enforcement would likely trigger receivership and termination of banking facilities causing serious financial consequences; the respondent had already received substantial payments and transfer of the matrimonial home and would not be prejudiced, and the stay was therefore appropriate subject to the condition that the appellant continue payments under the agreed schedule; costs were reserved to the cause with certificate for two coun…

  • 18 Aug 2022

    熊 對 黃

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 170
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3921/2019

    The court accepted the respondent’s and his mother’s credible primary evidence that the mother provided the purchase funds and mortgage repayments and was the beneficial owner; accordingly the sale proceeds were not the respondent’s asset for the purposes of ancillary relief. Given the short marriage (about 18 months), both parties’ similar earning capacities and the parties’ agreement on periodic maintenance, a lump sum order was unnecessary and periodic maintenance as agreed was appropriate.

  • 30 Aug 2021

    CHEUNG WING KUEN, SAMUEL v. IP CHUI SUM

    Citation
    [2021] HKCFI 2535
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP1981/2020

    Partition impracticable and an order for sale under section 6 PO was appropriate; the defendant failed to prove that sale would cause very great hardship or to justify a stay to pursue ancillary relief given unexplained delay and potential prejudice to the plaintiff; therefore sale ordered and stay declined; costs awarded to plaintiff.

  • 14 Jul 2020

    PRAJNA SANTI BUDHIMULJA v. SHINHAN BANK

    Citation
    [2020] HKDC 542
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ348/2019

    The court stayed all further conduct of the District Court action, including the interpleader summons, because the substantive dispute over beneficial ownership of the time deposit is more appropriately managed and decided in the Family Court under the MPPO which has no comparable monetary limit, and because the Claimant intends to challenge the Family Court's jurisdiction such that resolution of that challenge should determine the proper disposition of this action.

  • 20 Jan 2020

    AK v. MYNT

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 28
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16285/2017

    The court ordered transfer to the Court of First Instance because the legal and factual issues are highly complex, involve a substantial foreign element (an ongoing s.17 application concerning overseas trusts), and the capital value of the assets is very high (undisputed assets ~HKD255 million plus claimed USD69 million trusts); the parties agreed transfer and the transfer is made pursuant to Rules 32 and 80 and Practice Directions 15.4 to take effect after pronouncement of the Decree Nisi.

  • 5 Jul 2019

    AK v. MYNT

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 166
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16285/2017

    The court exercised its discretion and concluded indemnity costs were not appropriate on the facts because the parties each had genuine cases and the Husband's leave application was not totally devoid of merit; however the court found summary assessment appropriate and ordered costs to be summarily assessed and paid by the Husband to the Wife on a standard basis where specified.

  • 16 Oct 2018

    LWK v. ZQJ

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 174
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC6391/2016

    Leave to appeal was refused because the husband had no reasonable prospect of success: the court, on the chronology and evidence, found he had orchestrated duplicity and engaged in forum-shopping, and the anti-suit injunction was necessary to prevent oppressive parallel PRC proceedings and to protect the wife's legitimate interest in investigating alleged dissipation of assets; therefore the summons for leave to appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded to the wife.

  • 27 Feb 2018

    LHC v. KHS

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 23
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3343/2015

    Petitioner had partial success because respondent made additional relevant disclosures after the summons; however significant parts of the summons (notably paras 2 and 3) were oppressive, imprecise or unjustified while the second questionnaire's questions were largely reasonable; balancing these factors and exercising discretion under Order 62 the correct costs order was that petitioner pay half the costs of the summons and there be no order as to costs for the other half, with standard certification and taxation provisions; same order for costs of the arguments as an order nisi.

  • 17 Jul 2015

    陳 對 陳

    Citation
    陳 對 陳
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15210/2012

    Court found separation date was 5 September 2003 (wife left home); treated 嘉寶園 and 新元朗中心 and the wife's 2003 inheritance as matrimonial assets but excluded the wife's Singapore provident fund (CAD21,319) as non-matrimonial; total matrimonial pool HK$17,322,000 less HK$700,000 reserved for son's education = HK$16,622,000; applied sharing as starting point but departed by 10% in favour of husband (60% husband, 40% wife) to reflect wife's marital misconduct and husband's greater contribution; ordered specified payments from funds held by the court (release of HK$1,661,950 to husband and HK$1,038…