Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Post-separation assets

  • 30 Sept 2024

    梁 對 文

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 148
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC3751/2022

    Court found both parties have sufficient income to meet their needs; HK$360,000 withdrawals were held to be post-separation savings of the applicant and not matrimonial property for automatic sharing; although applicant had not been fully candid and adverse inferences were drawn, discretionary consideration of needs meant the HK$360,000 would not be used to satisfy either party's claims; respondent was found to have concealed some monthly savings estimated at HK$156,000 to be included in family asset calculation; MPF balances were discounted by 30%; on the overall assessment both maintenance…

  • 23 Jun 2015

    MKK v. YSM

    Citation
    MKK v. YSM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC11948/2010

    Assets were treated as matrimonial property notwithstanding respondent’s claim of separate finances; there was intermingling of funds and continued financial interactions post-separation, no nuptial/post-nuptial clean break agreement was proved, and the transfer of WF shares did not establish forfeiture of petitioner’s interest. Having regard to MPPO s7 factors, case law and the long marriage, assets valued at trial date, the fair division was 45% to petitioner and 55% to respondent, resulting in a lump sum award to petitioner of HK$20,996,000 payable by respondent in two equal instalments wi…

  • 19 Sept 2014

    LSM v. CMP

    Citation
    LSM v. CMP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7040/2011

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the wife had pocketed sale proceeds (Uptown $1,560,000 and 47E sale $3,350,000), controlled PK and had hidden assets (assessed at least $500,000); many alleged loans were fabricated or unsubstantiated; because of the long delay and the husbandʹs long acquiescence the court departed from strict equal division and awarded the husband a lump sum of $900,000 (about 14% of the identified matrimonial assets), vacated the registered Notice against the 47D House to permit payment within 3 months, and made a costs order nisi for one‑third of the wifeʹs c…