Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Matrimonial property division

  • 24 Jan 2025

    WMH v. LCY

    Citation
    [2025] HKCA 92
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP123/2024

    Leave to appeal was granted limited to the third intended ground only (that post‑trial falls in property values made the lump sum order unfair and sale/linked payment orders should have been considered) and the Court admitted the respondent's draft affirmation as fresh evidence for the leave application because the post‑trial market decline could substantially affect the matrimonial pot and therefore the fairness of the lump sum order; the first and second grounds were rejected as not reasonably arguable for lack of evidential basis or because they were discretionary matters within the judge'…

  • 7 Jun 2024

    葉 對 葉

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 123
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7247/2008

    Both applications for leave to appeal and the applicant's application to vary the costs order were dismissed. The court held that the grounds advanced merely rehashed trial evidence, failed to identify clear errors in the trial judge's reasoning, and did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success; new evidence was not admissible or credible under established tests; and variation of costs was unwarranted because settlement attempts and mediation failures did not justify departing from no costs order in the circumstances. Consequently no appeal hearing is required and no change to the cos…

  • 1 Dec 2023

    YSG(YX) v. LYAG

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 1319
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP554/2022

    Fresh expert evidence was excluded because it could have been obtained with reasonable diligence before trial; none of the proposed grounds of appeal were reasonably arguable; the judge's factual findings rejecting the 'black hole' theory, accepting the Duxbury SJE, ordering sale and equal division, and awarding 20% of the Husband's costs on an indemnity basis were within discretionary bounds and not wrong in principle; accordingly all five summonses were dismissed and costs orders were made as detailed.

  • 31 Jan 2013

    李 對 陳

    Citation
    李 對 陳
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12534/2008

    The property '觀塘居所' was excluded from the pool of matrimonial assets to be shared because the evidence established that the purchase funds (including the deposit) did not derive from the marital partnership but from the wife's family (loan by wife's mother) and the deceased father's will unambiguously gifted his estate to the wife; the husband failed to prove he paid the mortgage instalments; given those findings the court exercised its discretion under s7 Cap.192 to exclude the property from sharing and dismissed the ancillary relief application, ordering no costs.

  • 12 Feb 1999

    YEUNG WONG FUNG HING v. YEUNG TIM TUNG

    Citation
    YEUNG WONG FUNG HING v. YEUNG TIM TUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV224/1998

    The Court exercised its discretion to refuse admission of post-trial evidence because the August valuation and other post-trial events were speculative indicators of market trend, the 9% reduction did not demonstrate the trial judge's decision was wrong on the trial evidence, and the proper remedy for changed circumstances is an application to the Family Court for variation of orders; admission would undermine finality and would not assist the appeal.