6 Aug 2019
The application for leave to appeal was denied because the father failed to show a reasonable prospect of success on his proposed grounds; the judge found the undertakings valid and enforceable, the mother's figures were credible, the court had jurisdiction to enforce the undertakings and it was appropriate to apply the lump sum security to the arrears; thus leave under s63A(2) was not merited.
12 Oct 2018
On a broad-brush interim assessment the court accepted parts of both parties' positions, concluded the mother's detailed claims were excessive or insufficiently evidenced, and ordered interim maintenance of HK$120,000 per month from 1 September 2018 (father to continue paying school fees). Litigation funding was refused and adjourned sine die for lack of clear evidence and justification. No backdating beyond the date the child relocated was ordered and no car provision was made. The court directed evidential record-keeping and gave specific directions on rental deposit; costs were awarded to…
28 Jun 2013
Applying GMO s10(2) with guidance from Re P and related authorities, the court found Father remains a man of very considerable means despite asserted declines, Mother lacks comparable resources, and a broad‑brush budget for the child and primary carer in Hong Kong is reasonable; accordingly the Father must pay periodical maintenance of HK$290,000 per month (index‑linked) from 1 January 2013 with credit for overpayments and a lump sum of HK$3.35m within 14 days; security application adjourned with liberty to restore.
17 Oct 2012
Husband’s deliberate non‑compliance with interim maintenance and school fee orders constituted contempt that impeded the course of justice and justified refusing to hear and dismissing his removal application; on the evidence the Wife should have sole custody, care and control because that outcome is in the children’s best interests given the father’s conduct, lack of proposals for future care, and impracticability of joint custody given separation; disclosed matrimonial assets valued at HK$31,020,000 are to be divided equally, with specific lump sum, periodical payments and security against…
4 Jul 2005
Respondents application to reduce maintenance was dismissed because the court found he has substantial resources (savings/investments) and the childs reasonable monthly needs (assessed at about HK$8,400) exceed the ordered HK$6,000; respondents credibility and defaults justified enforcement measures including making the garnishee order absolute and ordering a HK$48,000 security deposit.
25 Oct 2000
The Court of Appeal found the trial judge's assessment materially flawed (failure to account for wife's new earnings and errors in asset characterization), substituted its own assessment, reduced the monthly maintenance payable by the husband for the children to HK$20,000, limited the wife's entitlement in respect of the husband's gratuity to 50% of the gratuity payable at the end of his current contract, ordered transfer of the wife's interest in the endowment policy to the husband, and set aside the blanket firm disqualification while preventing a specific solicitor from acting.
12 Nov 1999
The court found a material adverse change in the Respondent's financial circumstances (asset fall from ~HK$120M to about HK$7M and reduced income) sufficient to justify reducing each child's monthly maintenance from HK$18,500 to HK$13,500; the court rejected the Petitioner’s security/lump sum claim because ordering security or a large lump sum would be oppressive given the Respondent's present net assets and would hinder his ability to re-establish income, and the evidence of nondisclosure was insufficiently strong to infer concealed assets.
26 Apr 1996
Given the wife's serious medical needs and the husband's overall access to capital despite fluctuating income, the judge did not err in exercising his s11 discretion to increase maintenance to HK$18,000 per month, award arrears and order a HK$100,000 buffer; the Court of Appeal will not disturb that discretionary decision absent plain error or misunderstanding of law or evidence.
27 Feb 1981
The Registrar adopted the correct approach in principle but the appeal court varied the orders to give the wife greater capital to enable her to acquire housing: increase the wife's lump sum from $100,000 to $200,000, delete the Registrar's paragraph (v), retain the capitalised child maintenance awards, and reallocate the husband's inherited estate interest equally between husband and wife with the daughter's share deleted; appeal allowed in part and costs to the appellant.