Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Non-disclosure and adverse inference

  • 30 Aug 2024

    HYF v. CSL

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 162
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14931/2014

    Applying section 7 MPPO and LKW principles the court identified and adjusted the parties' asset ledgers (adding back quantified sums for non-disclosure and dissipation), concluded surplus exists after needs are met, applied the sharing principle but departed from equality because of W's greater contributions, H's gross misconduct (maintenance to mistress and child), abusive litigation in Shanghai and material non-disclosure; after adjustments the matrimonial pot was HK$174,930,171.36 and respondent (H) was awarded one quarter of the pot, payable as a lump sum of HK$22,508,000 by W within 28 d…

  • 18 Apr 2024

    LNE formerly known as LKPBB v. CKLM

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 73
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13477/2019

    Husband was non‑candid and failed to give full and frank disclosure; unlawfully obtained documents were admissible but given limited weight; adverse inferences drawn that husband realized substantial undisclosed funds (quantified by the judge as HK$34,000,000 added to declared assets) producing a matrimonial pot of HK$69,900,000; applying needs and sharing principles a 60/40 division in favour of the wife is just and fair; husband to pay lump sum HK$6,040,000 and monthly child maintenance HK$87,000; costs ordered nisi (no order as to costs).

  • 24 Nov 2023

    李 對 甘

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 228
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10730/2013

    The court quantified the matrimonial asset pool (not less than HK$9,470,725.6), applied the LKW equal sharing presumption and found no sufficient reason to depart from 50/50. Because the respondent repeatedly failed to disclose financials and attend hearings, the court drew adverse inferences and exercised statutory powers to ensure implementation (including appointment of a solicitor to sign documents). Consequently the court ordered transfer of the Flower Market Road property to the applicant, sale of Haifu Garden with specified priority payments and allocations, monthly maintenance for the…

  • 18 Sept 2023

    馮 對 黎

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 177
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9000/2020

    因被告多次未遵從披露命令且缺席審訊，法院對其行為作不利揣測，保守估算被告可動用家庭資產約港幣6,000,000元；扣除女方經濟需要港幣2,273,416元後，餘額平均分配，故女方獲一筆過附屬濟助港幣4,165,707.61元；並命被告支付候訊期間贍養費欠款港幣260,000元及訟費暫准命令。

  • 29 May 2023

    吳 對 王

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 93
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14470/2017

    Court found separation date was July 2009; Cheung Sha Wan property was acquired after separation with respondent's post-separation funds and is non‑matrimonial (or justifies departure from equal sharing); applicant failed to make full, credible disclosure so adverse inferences applied; applicant's future need assessed at HK$3,240,000 minus disclosed assets (HK$98,723.11) but allowing an adverse inference reduced recovery to a fair lump sum of HK$2,513,000; ordered applicant to vacate Cheung Sha Wan property within 4 months and respondent to pay HK$2,513,000 in staged payments with respondent…

  • 18 Aug 2022

    李 對 梁

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 172
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC794/2019

    On the evidence before it (applicant's sworn case, valuation and expense particulars) and given respondent's non‑disclosure and absence, the court accepted the mediated agreement as an influential factual basis, drew adverse inferences about respondent's wider means, and ordered transfer of respondent's interest in the matrimonial home to the applicant, a lump sum to compensate for unpaid mortgage and maintenance, and ongoing child maintenance consistent with the agreement and the parties' assessed needs.

  • 7 Mar 2018

    ZJ v. GWR

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 28
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13419/2013

    Court valued total family assets at approximately HK$12,976,605.06 (rounded to HK$13,000,000) after specific add-backs and deductions; drew adverse inference for lack of full and frank disclosure by Husband; found specific dissipations (HK$800,000 funeral-related, HK$500,000 Canadian repairs, HK$300,000 gambling, HK$863,274.42 unexplained re-finance proceeds) and rejected wholesale add-back of other contested items; applied sharing principle and equal division given facts and duration, and ordered a clean break awarding Wife a lump sum of HK$6.5 million with implementation directions and cost…

  • 11 Sept 2017

    L v. C

    Citation
    L v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5952/2012

    Court found Shenzhen sale at RMB1.45m genuine but RMB808,000 of sale proceeds (including RMB570,000 alleged repayments and RMB238,000 unexplained disappearance) must be added back to wife's balance sheet; wife culpable of non-disclosure warranting adverse inference (reducing her maintenance claim); husband’s voluntary resignation from higher‑paying Hong Kong employment is self‑engineering so earning capacity fixed at HK$40,000/month; no exceptional reason to depart from equal division; Hong Kong property to be sold and net proceeds split 65% to husband and 35% to wife to equalize assets; wife…

  • 14 Jul 2014

    ZYM also known as ZYM v. LYK AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ZYM also known as ZYM v. LYK AND OTHERS
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14539/2007

    Leave to appeal refused for both the Husband and the 3rd Respondent because the trial judge's findings of sham arrangements, material non-disclosure and the adverse inference drawn were supported by the evidence, the assessment of earning capacity and s7 MPPO discretionary orders were within the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement and not plainly wrong, and the costs decision was a proper exercise of discretion; the costs nisi was made absolute.

  • 10 Sept 2013

    H v. W AND OTHERS

    Citation
    H v. W AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC6/2008

    Applying the sharing principle and s7 MPPO, the court found H had materially breached his duty of full and frank disclosure, destroyed/withheld documents and engaged in conduct justifying adverse inferences and additions to the matrimonial pool; the offshore trust was a discretionary family trust (not a 'dear me' trust) but variation was justified to achieve a clean break by removing H as beneficiary; 50% of the trust value was treated as a financial resource for W; the court quantified disclosed and reasonably inferred undisclosed assets, applied a conservative market-based growth rate, calc…