Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 17 matrimonial proceedings and property ordinance

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2021

RE TYT AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 454
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP192/2020

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable; the Judge's factual findings (that the Wife lacked intention to defeat the Husband's claim, that evidence indicated the Husband was the beneficial owner of significant assets, and that the Husband had not shown he would be the ultimate payee) were supported by affidavit evidence and the Judge properly exercised her discretion on injunction, admission of post-hearing evidence and costs variation.
30 Jan 2019

HK v. TP

Citation

[2019] HKFC 23
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC245/2017

Leave to appeal refused because the intervener failed to show a reasonable prospect of success; the CFI action had not reached case management/trial stages so moving preliminary issues to Family Court was appropriate to avoid multiplicity and wasted resources; late evidence could not be relied on and factual disputes could not be resolved at the leave stage; the intervener had participated in duplicative proceedings and claimed costs did not justify granting leave.
19 Jul 2018

WYSL v. FHCBA

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1543
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC8/2016

Judge found on the evidence the Disputed Properties were beneficially held for the Father/the Estate not as gifts to the Husband; the Husband's interest in the discretionary Trust was not a current resource; therefore the s.17 Application to set aside dispositions was dismissed and did not alter the asset pool; on s.7 exercise the Wife's needs were met by a lump sum award of HKD 24,000,000 payable within four months; costs orders were made accordingly.
9 Jan 2018

LP v. LWCF

Citation

[2018] HKFC 2
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC18105/2013

The 26 July 2017 letter did not constitute a pre-action letter and the Petitioner failed to make reasonable enquiries before issuing the section 17 application; the Petitioner had carriage of the application and therefore must pay the 5th Intervener's costs of and occasioned by the withdrawal of the summonses, to be taxed forthwith with a certificate for counsel.
3 Jun 2009

C v. T AND OTHERS

Citation

C v. T AND OTHERS
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC12488/2003

Court found wife transferred certain properties at least in part with intention to retain family assets beyond husband's reach and accordingly set aside the transfers of the Po Ming property (from wife to PY) and the Jaffe Road property (from wife to JA,J,P) and ordered those transfers reversed; transfers that had been re-transferred by the disponees (to APL or to J) were beyond the power of s.17 to set aside and therefore could not be reversed but were treated as financial resources for valuation; certain properties (13D, 2C, San Francisco) were held to be family resources available to the w…
6 Feb 2006

HKCB FINANCE LTD v. YUEN YI WAN SANDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKCB FINANCE LTD v. YUEN YI WAN SANDY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV355/2005

The Court held that ground 4 of the appeal has a reasonable prospect of success because the circumstances of the sale and sub-sale were sufficiently suspicious to put the bank on enquiry and it is arguable the bank failed to make reasonable enquiries (such as inspecting the property) which would have revealed the 2nd defendant's claim under section 17 MPP Ordinance; accordingly execution was stayed pending determination of the appeal.
29 Nov 2004

HKCB FINANCE LTD v. YUEN YI WAN SANDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

HKCB FINANCE LTD v. YUEN YI WAN SANDY AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2017/2002

The judge found on the facts that the 2nd Defendant did not acquire a beneficial interest by contribution or common intention; the s.17 order re‑vested beneficial interest only from the date of that order and cannot defeat a prior legal charge held by a bona fide purchaser for value without notice; the Plaintiff had no actual or constructive notice of the disponor's intention to defeat matrimonial claims; the sale and sub-sale were suspicious but not illegal or sham of sufficient turpitude to void the mortgage; therefore the legal charge is valid and takes priority and the Plaintiff is entitl…
18 Jan 2000

SZE v. YIU

Citation

SZE v. YIU
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC1158/1997

On the evidence the court found Madam Lee was the sole beneficial owner, the Wife held the property in trust for her, the Husband's evidence was fabricated and inconsistent; consequently there was no beneficial interest in the Wife to attract s.17 relief and the s.17 application was dismissed.
17 Nov 1997

TAN LI HUI CHENG v. TAN KIAN CHEE

Citation

TAN LI HUI CHENG v. TAN KIAN CHEE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC6/1997

The court continued the injunction against the respondent because preservation of the net proceeds was necessary pending determination of ancillary relief given the risk of transfer out of jurisdiction and the respondent did not establish material non-disclosure sufficient to discharge the ex parte orders; the court exercised its s.17 and inherent jurisdiction and declined to require an undertaking as to damages.
6 Jun 1985

WENDY WENTA SENG YUEN v. PHILIP PAK YIU YUEN

Citation

WENDY WENTA SENG YUEN v. PHILIP PAK YIU YUEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMC18/1983

The application to strike out was dismissed: a solicitor's affidavit can suffice as supporting evidence under rule 74; failure to have served identified third parties should not defeat a s.17 application at a preliminary stage; the petitioner having received prior funds did not, on the facts, conclusively preclude further financial provision and therefore did not render the s.17 application frivolous or an abuse of process.