Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Section 18 declaration

  • 8 Nov 2022

    CCYL v. CCSR

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 238
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13650/2019

    Because the husband deliberately failed to give full and frank disclosure, the court drew adverse inferences that he had hidden assets (including Seychelles company and Interactive Brokers account), concluded he was a person with means (assets significantly more than HK$8,093,000), applied needs and sharing principles and ordered lump sum capital of HK$2,100,000 to wife, lump sum HK$480,000 for the daughter and monthly child maintenance of HK$49,000; interim maintenance discharged and costs to wife on indemnity basis.

  • 16 Jun 2022

    胡 對 楊

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 188
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13200/2019

    The court applied the paramountcy of the children's best interests, gave appropriate weight to the clear and reasonable wishes of adolescent children and the objective evidence of living arrangements and parental capacity, and concluded that maintaining the current arrangements best served each child: son’s care and control to father (with status quo residence with uncle/extended family and mother’s reasonable access); daughter’s care and control to mother; joint custody inappropriate given parents’ inability to cooperate.

  • 4 Apr 2022

    FWY v. TYCY AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 67
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9932/2018

    On the balance of probabilities the court found the parties had a tacit common intention that the 1st Property was beneficially owned equally by husband, wife and mother at acquisition (each one‑third) and that no enforceable common intention arose in respect of the 2nd Property in favour of the mother; therefore the mother's proprietary claim in the 2nd Property fails; the matrimonial assets were quantified, a child reserve of HK$864,000 ordered, and the net matrimonial assets divided between husband and wife on a 40%/60% basis with specified lump sum and periodical payments and sale orders.

  • 9 Oct 2020

    R, LH also known as J, LH v. J, MS

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 209
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14631/2017

    The court granted the s.18 declaration because the arrangements for the child's welfare were satisfactory and the wife provided a clear undertaking to maintain the child pending or indefinitely in the absence of orders; given the husband's lack of disclosure, uncertain residence and limited enforceability, it was appropriate to make the decree absolute and adjourn ancillary relief sine die while preserving the wife's right to seek financial orders later.

  • 9 Mar 2018

    R,CS v. C,L

    Citation
    [2018] HKFC 32
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7811/2015

    Sole custody and sole care and control were vested in the father because the paramount consideration (the child's welfare) favoured the father's stable and nurturing home, social welfare and clinical psychologist reports supported supervised access for the mother, the mother failed to comply with court directions and there were credible concerns about her mental health and unpredictable behaviour; supervised defined access and an updated social investigation in 12 months were ordered, a Section 18 declaration was granted and the father was authorised to renew the child’s passport/visa without…

  • 12 Feb 2016

    CL v. LWP

    Citation
    CL v. LWP
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC16222/2012

    The court held that the Husband successfully rebutted the s17 presumption in respect of (a) the transfer of his interest in the Luen Wai property to his daughter (genuine transfer related to her forthcoming marriage) and (b) the HK$280,000 (spent as wedding/jia zhuang expenses), therefore the Section 17 application fails; the matrimonial asset pool was assessed at HKD 8,940,000 and the sharing principle applied equally (50:50); ancillary reliefs were ordered by way of transfer of Husband's interests in Sun On and Wuhan properties to Wife and a lump sum equalization payment of HKD 192,000; no…

  • 29 Jan 2015

    YYK V. TSCJ (now known as TKW)

    Citation
    YYK V. TSCJ (now known as TKW)
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC5141/2010

    Court found on balance that the HK$600,000 was held on trust for the Wife's father and not matrimonial; the Husband had materially failed to disclose assets and owned an ABC (RMB) bank account and other undisclosed transactions totalling HK$1,898,088 which, together with disclosed assets and sale proceeds, yielded total matrimonial assets of approx. HK$2,718,000; applying the sharing principle with a justified 10% departure in favour of the Wife, the court awarded the Wife 60% (HK$1,627,200) as lump sum and periodical payments of HK$15,000 per month, ordered costs to the Wife and granted a s1…

  • 28 Feb 2014

    SCT v. CH AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    SCT v. CH AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15783/2011

    Court rejected the Father and husband's evidence that the Father was sole beneficial owner and/or that the husband was merely a nominee; the presumption of advancement was not rebutted in the Fathers' favour and the evidence supported that the husband was beneficially entitled to the business and disputed properties; applying s.7 MPPO and the sharing principle the court found surplus assets existed, treated the non‑matrimonial/unilateral assets as warranting departure from equal division and awarded the wife a lump sum to achieve a clean break together with costs against the husband and Fathe…

  • 14 Oct 2010

    LTT v. TTM

    Citation
    LTT v. TTM
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2679/2009

    The court awarded the entirety of the parties net interest in the former matrimonial home (assessed at HKD600,000) to the wife at nil consideration because (1) the children's future needs (assessed at HKD634,000) exceeded the available family asset, (2) the husband was unable to provide reliable periodical maintenance, (3) the wife had greater overall contribution and greater needs, and (4) securing accommodation and liquidity for the children outweighed the equal‑sharing starting point; accordingly no lump sum of HKD150,000 was payable to the husband and the transfer was ordered subject to…

  • 24 Sept 2010

    KNM v. HTF

    Citation
    KNM v. HTF
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14334/2007

    On the evidence the husband had no beneficial interest in Sentact, Jade Mansion or City Garden properties; payments recorded as rent were sham/tax arrangements or contributions to grandparents and not recoverable as rents except where specific trust found (HK$36,000 held by paternal grandmother as trustee); the $4,060,000 advanced for Granville Garden was a loan not a gift so subsequent payments by husband were repayments, defeating resulting trust claim in Aldrich Garden and car park proceeds; most assertions of dissipation failed on evidence; two withdrawals (HK$100,000 and CNY132,000) requ…