Read the full judgment text of FCMC 2050/2021 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 28 February 2024 before Her Honour Judge Elaine Liu.
Matrimonial Causes – Ancillary Relief – Lump Sum – Property Division – Mental Health – Absent Respondent – District Court – Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance s.7 – LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537 – W entitled to lump sum HK$1,702,533 – HK Property to be sold – H pays W's costs. This is a trial on the Petitioner wife’s claims for ancillary relief in a childless marriage of about 8 years. The parties got married on 2 November 2012 and separated in January 2020. The Respondent husband acted in person and was absent at the trial. The court considered the parties’ financial resources, earning capacity, and needs under section 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance. The legal principles laid down by the Court of Final Appeal in LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537 were applied. The court identified assets including the Hong Kong Property, 2 PRC Properties, insurance policies, bank deposits, and MPF. The Hong Kong Property was purchased after separation but the application was during marriage, so it was included as a matrimonial asset. The court found a surplus of assets and applied the sharing principle. W’s mental health condition was considered, but the principle of equal division was applied. W is entitled to a lump sum payment of HK$1,702,533. The Hong Kong Property is to be sold within 12 months from the date of Decree Absolute. The sale proceeds are to be used to settle expenses, pay W’s lump sum, and the balance to H. H is ordered to pay W’s costs in the ancillary relief proceedings. The Respondent failed to comply with court orders for disclosure. The court was satisfied on a balance of probability that the Respondent had notice of the proceedings. The Petitioner is legally aided. The Respondent claimed monthly expenses of HK$29,064. The Petitioner reported monthly expenses of about HK$5,500. The court found the parties have earning capacity to meet their own needs save and except if W’s mental health condition deteriorates. The court accepted W’s evidence on the background for the purchase of the Hong Kong Property. The initial downpayment ought to be sourced from the parties’ assets during marriage. The court made an order nisi to become absolute within 14 days that H do pay W’s costs in the ancillary relief proceedings, to be taxed if not agreed. W’s own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.
Legal issues: Ownership of PRC Properties · Financial resources, earning capacity, and needs · Surplus assets and distribution · Departure from equal division
Outcome: W entitled to lump sum HK$1,702,533; HK Property to be sold.