Read the full judgment text of FCMC 10769/2017 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 23 January 2020 before His Honour Judge K K PANG.
Matrimonial law – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap.192) s.17 – setting aside disposition – intention to defeat financial provision – presumption – valuable consideration – good faith – rental income – costs – Assignment set aside – Transactions set aside – Costs to Petitioner – The Wife (Petitioner) and Husband (1st Respondent) were married in 1960 with two sons. The Husband left the Matrimonial Home in May 2017, and the 2nd son (2nd Respondent) subsequently forced the Wife out and transferred the home to himself in July 2017. The Wife alleged the Husband made various bank transfers to the 2nd son with the intention of defeating her claim for financial provision. The 2nd son was absent from the trial and did not file evidence. The court held that the presumption under s.17(3) applied to the Assignment and the 3rd, 4th and 5th transactions as they were made within 3 years of the application and would defeat the claim. The court found the dispositions were not made for valuable consideration and the 2nd son did not act in good faith. The court ordered the Assignment and the 3rd, 4th and 5th transactions to be set aside. The 1st and 2nd transactions were not set aside as there was no evidence of intention to defeat the claim at the time. The 2nd son was ordered to account for rental income and repay the Husband's share of the joint account funds. Costs were awarded to the Petitioner.
Legal issues: Intention to defeat financial provision · Valuable consideration and good faith · Presumption under s.17(3) · Application to 1st and 2nd transactions · Consequential orders
Outcome: Assignment dated 19 July 2017 set aside; 3rd, 4th and 5th transactions set aside; 2nd son to account for rental income and repay Husband's share of joint account funds; 1st and 2nd transactions not set aside; Costs to Petitioner
Cites 2 cases