16 Jun 2011
ARAV v. VP, LJ
- Citation
- ARAV v. VP, LJ
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV246/2010
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal: the trial judge did not err in law in declining to add back the HK$32.5M to the matrimonial pot because section 7 MPPO confers broad discretion to address misconduct either by add-back or by adjusting the division; on the facts the judge permissibly took the husband's conduct into account by departing from equal sharing (approximately 60:40) and her factual findings were not plainly wrong.