Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Property transfer

  • 24 Jan 2025

    何 對 何及另一人

    Citation
    [2025] HKFC 17
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC23/2018

    On the evidence the court accepted the wife's contemporaneous communications, the agent's evidence and the second respondent's admissions that the deceased never funded the purchase; the deceased (and his estate) was not the beneficial owner and the husband was the sole beneficial owner of Yinghai. Yinghai nonetheless constituted the matrimonial home and formed part of the matrimonial asset pool. Applying Cap.192 s7 and the LKW v DD five-step approach the court adopted the sharing principle but departed from equal division because of the short duration of the marriage and the pre‑marital orig…

  • 28 Dec 2023

    譚 對 歐陽及另二人

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 1355
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP276/2022

    The applicant's renewed contentions were repetitions of issues already determined and provided no sufficient reason to depart from the ordinary rule that costs follow the event; therefore the application to vary the costs order is dismissed and the applicant must pay the respondent's costs, to be taxed if not agreed.

  • 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.

  • 30 Sept 2021

    趙 對 梁

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 193
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15350/2016

    Respondent's factual assertions were unsupported by contemporaneous evidence or witness testimony; he had signed an independent confirmation acknowledging understanding and opportunity for independent advice; he failed to show any effective extension request or timely loan approval within the 14‑day period; therefore his defences failed and the court ordered immediate enforcement of the 26/9/2017 consent order with specified timelines and prohibitory injunctions.

  • 10 Nov 2020

    YCKS v. MPKC

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 172
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5771/2018

    Because the respondent failed to make full and frank disclosure and gave evasive evidence the court drew adverse inferences, adopted the respondent's earlier fuller Form E as a baseline but updated the Lamma Property valuation (HK$10,100,000) to quantify total matrimonial assets at HK$17,305,768.35, found the wife's and children's quantified needs (HK$21,702,900) exceeded available liquid surplus and that no practical secure periodic maintenance would be obtained from the respondent; accordingly the court ordered transfer of the Lamma Property to the wife at nil consideration (subject to Lega…

  • 12 Feb 2019

    L 對 Y

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 31
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC195/2014

    The court determined the matrimonial pot totalled HK$2,600,772.66; the wife’s overall entitlement was set at 46% and the husband at 54% based on contributions and post‑separation conduct; the husband had concealed business profits and two ledger items totalling HK$1,306,917 were treated as hidden cash thereby forming part of his assets; allegations that the wife had misappropriated HK$1,048,033 were rejected; the appropriate practical remedy was to transfer the matrimonial home (valued HK$1,200,000) to the wife within six months, rescind the interim maintenance order and require repayment of…

  • 24 Jul 2017

    NG SHING CHIT v. LEE KIN CHU

    Citation
    NG SHING CHIT v. LEE KIN CHU
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1228/2015

    Adjournment was granted because the defendant's recent and serious illness, supported by a hospital note, rendered her a material witness whose attendance was necessary; the plaintiff's interest was not irreparably prejudiced given the relief sought (transfer subject to life interest) and the plaintiff did not oppose an adjournment provided corroborating affirmation was filed, so the trial dates were vacated and a direction hearing fixed.

  • 21 Nov 2016

    柯 v. 龔

    Citation
    柯 v. 龔
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12807/2013

    There was insufficient, cogent evidence to identify recoverable family assets or to justify drawing adverse inferences from non‑production of documents in the context of an antecedent bankruptcy; consequently no monetary ancillary relief could be made to meet the Wife's claims; however nominal maintenance of HK$1 per annum was appropriate to preserve rights and a Section 18 declaration was granted; costs reserved but no order except respondent's own costs to be taxed under Legal Aid Regulations.

  • 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.

  • 27 Jun 2007

    L v. Y

    Citation
    L v. Y
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC12396/2006

    Applying s.7 MPPO factors the court found a clean break appropriate: wife's proven needs and limited current earning capacity justified limited short-term maintenance; husband's higher income and capability to pay justified continuing child maintenance; wife's allegations of debts were unproven or barred by earlier settlement; husband's conduct (adultery) was not 'obvious and gross' to deny provision. Therefore ordered transfer of husband's share in Tseung Kwan O to wife, limited spousal maintenance $10,000/month for 12 months, child maintenance $14,000/month until 18 or end of full-time educ…