Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Periodical payments (maintenance)

  • 5 Oct 2015

    VE (nee KE) v. VRJ

    Citation
    VE (nee KE) v. VRJ
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7676/2011

    The family was effectively insolvent with most liquid assets consumed by litigation; the court prioritised the children's needs and parties' respective earning capacities and needs over strict equal division. The judge ordered HK$1,000,000 to be released for the two children (HK$500,000 each) in joint accounts for education, awarded the petitioner a periodical payment of HK$7,000 per month, and directed that the remaining court-held proceeds be released to the petitioner (subject to the Director of Legal Aid's first charge and taxation), set aside a prior withdrawal order, imposed undertaking…

  • 2 Dec 2011

    KEWS v. NCHC

    Citation
    KEWS v. NCHC
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV75/2011

    The Court concluded the trial judge was plainly wrong to fix maintenance at the low sums ordered because the Husband had under‑utilised earning capacity and continued substantial parental financial support; applying the doctrine of judicious encouragement and assessing the Wife's needs, the proper maintenance is HK$42,500 per month and a capital lump sum of HK$1,500,000 payable within one year, and the secured periodical payment application should not be dismissed permanently; costs awarded to the Wife on appeal.

  • 8 Aug 2007

    W v. C

    Citation
    W v. C
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2162/2006

    Having considered s.7 factors and evidence, the court concluded that both parties made broadly equal contributions, petitioner has sufficient earning capacity and son support, and respondent offered to transfer his entire interest; accordingly it was fair to order respondent to transfer his entire interest in the Chaiwan Property to petitioner on a clean break basis, dismiss ancillary claims for maintenance, allocate stamp duty to petitioner and each party to bear their own transfer costs, with the order nisi to become final after 21 days.

  • 29 Apr 2004

    W v. W

    Citation
    W v. W
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2348/2002

    Although the Wife obtained a marginally higher capital award, she failed on the primary issue of substantive periodical payments; neither party acted improperly but the Husband succeeded on the main issue, so the fair exercise of the court's discretion was to order the Husband to pay the Wife's taxed party and party costs up to the start of trial on 18 September 2003 (with credit for his prior contribution) and to make no order for costs thereafter.

  • 22 Oct 1999

    M v. M

    Citation
    M v. M
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5111/1999

    Given the parties' disclosed assets, the Wife's immediate need for a home and uncertain earning capacity, and the Husband's greater long‑term earning potential, a fair division entitling the Wife to about half the net assets in a mix of cashable items (personal accounts, net sale proceeds of Nevada property, 4,000 P&G shares and a US$30,000 lump sum) together with periodical maintenance of US$6,500 gross for the Wife and US$1,500 for the child was appropriate; Nevada litigation conduct was not sufficiently culpable to reduce the Wife's award; no order as to legal costs (each party to bear own…