Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14470/2017 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 29 May 2023 before 廖玉玲.
Divorce – Ancillary Relief – Asset Disclosure – Separation Date – Equal Sharing Principle – District Court – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap 192) – Matrimonial Causes Ordinance (Cap 179) – Parties married in 1988 and separated in 2009 – Wife filed for divorce in 2017 – Husband consented – Main dispute over separation date (2009 vs 2010) – Court found separation date was July 2009 based on evidence and wife's own petition – Dispute over asset determination including Lai Chi Kok and Cheung Yi property proceeds – Wife failed to disclose assets totaling approximately HK$1.98 million – Court applied adverse inferences for non-disclosure – Cheung Sha Wan property purchased by husband after separation deemed non-marital asset – Wife's economic needs assessed at HK$3.24 million – Husband ordered to pay lump sum of HK$2,513,000 – Wife ordered to vacate Cheung Sha Wan property within 4 months – Wife to pay husband's costs – Court considered departure from equal sharing principle but found no surplus assets after needs – Judgment delivered by District Court Judge Liao Yuling on May 29, 2023. The court applied the principles from LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537 regarding asset division. The court considered the husband's income from police pension and contract work. The wife's income was limited to maintenance payments. The court found the wife's non-disclosure of assets was significant. The court ordered the wife to vacate the property to allow for the husband's possession. The court considered the husband's gift to his girlfriend but deemed it appropriate to consider it when assessing departure from equal sharing. The court found the husband's expenses were reasonable. The court found the wife's expenses were reasonable. The court ordered the husband to pay the wife's costs if not agreed. The court found the wife's delay in proceedings was significant. The court found the husband's evidence was credible. The court found the wife's evidence was not fully credible. The court found the wife's non-disclosure was intentional. The court found the husband's disclosure was complete. The court found the wife's assets were insufficient to meet her needs. The court found the husband's assets were sufficient to meet his needs. The court found the wife's needs were reasonable. The court found the husband's needs were reasonable. The court found the wife's contribution to the family was significant. The court found the husband's contribution to the family was significant. The court found the wife's conduct was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's conduct was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the wife's delay was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's delay was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the wife's non-disclosure was relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's non-disclosure was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the wife's assets were not sufficient to meet her needs. The court found the husband's assets were sufficient to meet his needs. The court found the wife's needs were reasonable. The court found the husband's needs were reasonable. The court found the wife's contribution to the family was significant. The court found the husband's contribution to the family was significant. The court found the wife's conduct was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's conduct was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the wife's delay was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's delay was not relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the wife's non-disclosure was relevant to ancillary relief. The court found the husband's non-disclosure was not relevant to ancillary relief.
Legal issues: Separation Date · Asset Determination · Economic Needs Assessment · Departure from Equal Sharing Principle
Outcome: Wife to vacate Cheung Sha Wan property; Husband to pay Wife HK$2,513,000 lump sum; Wife to pay Husband's costs.
Cites 4 cases