17 Jul 2024
依據Cap.192及終審法院在LKW v DD確立的平等分享準則，法院認為沒有充足理由偏離平等分配家庭資產；兩項物業及其他資產均為婚姻期間取得的家庭資產，故判令女方無償轉讓將軍澳物業之權益予男方，女方向男方支付HKD 361,352.65，並出售羅便臣道物業後將淨收益平均分配；另就各物業在出售或轉讓前之費用分配作出臨時安排。
17 Apr 2024
Court found respondent deliberately breached the consent order and extravagantly dissipated HK$2,205,800 of the Shenzhen sale proceeds; that sum was notionally re‑attributed (added back) to the matrimonial pool; assets were then divided to achieve a broadly fair outcome by preserving the wife’s occupation of the First City property and capitalising part of the court‑held proceeds for child maintenance ($480,000) paid in six‑monthly instalments while transferring the Zhaoqing property to the husband and paying the husband a one‑off HK$100,000; respondent remains liable for his own debts and no…
20 Dec 2023
The court found the orders were clear and valid, the respondent had received and understood them (demonstrated by multiple appellate filings), the respondent failed to comply within the deadlines and offered no credible or reasonable explanation; the breach was proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore constituted civil contempt, warranting conviction and committal proceedings.
18 Apr 2019
The court found the matrimonial asset pot to be HK$53,222,384.99 (net), applied the sharing principle because surplus remained after needs were met, declined to depart from equal sharing on conduct grounds, included the Wife's commutable pension component of HK$3,605,724.18, included disclosed investments into MAL as shown in the Husband's December 2017 table (but did not add accrued unpaid MAL fees/reimbursements), ordered an equal division of net assets on a clean break basis with property-specific transfers and a secured HK$5,000,000 Children’s Fund (HK$2.5m each) to meet children’s needs,…