Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Sharing principle

  • 18 Jul 2024

    KKSR v. CLH aka ZL

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 141
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC13299/2019

    The judge found H gave unsatisfactory, evasive and dishonest evidence, failed deplorably in the duty of full and frank disclosure and failed to account for substantial sale proceeds and income; that misconduct met the high threshold for conduct to be taken into account under section 7; consequently the starting equal-division yardstick was displaced and a departure to 55% to W and 45% to H produced a fair outcome, together with specific orders (transfer of Cambodia property, equalization payment, secured child maintenance and costs in favour of W).

  • 28 Feb 2024

    LYT v. CCS

    Citation
    [2024] HKFC 38
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC2050/2021

    On the balance of probabilities the Hong Kong Property was procured pursuant to arrangements made during the marriage and given its timing and source of funds is a matrimonial asset; the petitioner proved the existence/value of the PRC properties and the transferred insurance policies are matrimonial assets; applying the sharing principle and considering needs (including petitioner’s mental health) a 50:50 division after accounting for petitioner’s own assets yields a lump sum award of HK$1,702,533 payable from sale proceeds of the Hong Kong Property.

  • 18 Oct 2023

    SPY v. KYH by guardian ad litem, KWOK IAN CHIN YEUNG

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 214
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7988/2007

    Applying MPPO s7 and guidance in LKW v DD, the court assessed assets and needs, found available assets insufficient to meet both parties' needs so the sharing principle did not apply; having drawn an adverse inference from the respondent/GAL's failure to disclose, the court ordered sale of the matrimonial home and directed that, after deductions and subject to the Director of Legal Aid's first charge, any net sale proceeds be paid to the petitioner, and dismissed remaining ancillary relief claims.

  • 18 Sept 2023

    馮 對 黎

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 177
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9000/2020

    因被告多次未遵從披露命令且缺席審訊，法院對其行為作不利揣測，保守估算被告可動用家庭資產約港幣6,000,000元；扣除女方經濟需要港幣2,273,416元後，餘額平均分配，故女方獲一筆過附屬濟助港幣4,165,707.61元；並命被告支付候訊期間贍養費欠款港幣260,000元及訟費暫准命令。

  • 24 Aug 2023

    吳 對 蕭

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 160
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC7495/2011

    Applying s.7 and LKW methodology the court found the parties' identifiable matrimonial assets to be modest (approx. HK$14,613,935), treated the Golden Coast sale proceeds as pre-allocated to the wife, applied the sharing principle but limited by parties' needs and available assets, and ordered that within three months after the absolute decree the wife transfer title of 永利8G to the husband and the husband concurrently transfer title of 永利9F to the wife, with each transferee responsible for any registered encumbrances and transfer costs; the court refused the husband's claim for transfer of a…

  • 17 Mar 2023

    CHN v. CCY

    Citation
    [2023] HKFC 48
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC1755/2020

    The court excluded the alleged Parental Loans and Trust Money as enforceable liabilities for these proceedings (finding them gifts/soft loans and the supporting documents post‑event and unconvincing); identified total net joint assets of HKD13700232; assessed W’s reasonable monthly need at HKD90,000 (earning capacity HKD130,000) and H’s need at HKD20,000 (earning capacity HKD15–20k); held W’s conduct was not so gross and obvious as to justify departure from equal sharing; awarded H needs-based provision for five years on a clean break (full for two years and half for three years) and converte…

  • 24 Jun 2022

    LCC v. LTLA

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1922
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMC4/2019

    The court found on the evidence that MIL, WEL and SEHL were materially mingled and integrated during a 30-year marriage so all three companies are matrimonial assets; the Husband engaged in wanton and reckless gambling dissipating HK$96,590,486 which must be added back to the matrimonial pot; the post-separation director's loans are not the Wife's liability and the Husband failed to account for most of them; applying the sharing principle and balancing monetization risk, the court ordered a lump sum of HK$292,000,000 to the Wife (split approximately 49.5% Wife : 50.5% Husband) payable in stag…

  • 8 Apr 2022

    梁 對 陳

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 62
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC14075/2015

    Court quantified total family assets (HK$17,011,529.94), assessed respondent's housing and maintenance needs for ten years and five years respectively, applied sharing principle but departed from strict equal division because the marriage was short, most assets were premarital/gifts, and respondent warranted some compensatory award for lost earning capacity; accordingly a one‑off lump sum of HK$3,394,500 (approx 20% of family assets, incorporating a 5% compensatory element) was ordered payable by applicant within one month of the absolute divorce, with ancillary orders to give effect to that…

  • 7 Mar 2022

    JTMW v. NAV

    Citation
    [2022] HKFC 46
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8504/2017

    Applying LKW v DD, the court found the parties' needs could be met, excluded the Danish house from the matrimonial pool, found no sufficient evidence of litigation misconduct or substantial continuing parental support to justify departing from equal division, and therefore applied an equal division of the distributable matrimonial assets resulting in payment of $450,430 to the wife and the balance to the husband.

  • 17 Jun 2021

    NWSA v. CTYT

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 119
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC15494/2016

    Court found sufficient contemporaneous evidence to exclude US$564,405 as belonging to third parties and to remove Flat 8A from the matrimonial pool because it was purchased pre-marriage and intended for H's mother/brother; withdrawals for medical and insurance expenses were ordinary family expenditure (no add-back) and redacted settlement correspondence could not be relied upon as an admission to repay; W failed to adduce expert evidence to substantiate lifelong caregiving incapacity; after excluding identified items, remaining matrimonial assets divided equally between parties (save for spec…