Read the full judgment text of FCMC 6652/2022 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 22 January 2025 before Her Honour Judge Thelma Kwan.
Matrimonial proceedings – Ancillary relief – Non-disclosure – Conduct – Children maintenance – Clean break – District Court – Parties married in October 2006 with three children born in Beijing – Petitioner husband US citizen working in China as consultant and director – Respondent wife Korean housewife turned consultant – Separation date disputed between September 2017 and September 2020 – Both parties accused of hiding financial resources and failing duty of full and frank disclosure – Court found both parties failed duty of full and frank disclosure – Adverse inferences drawn regarding undisclosed assets – Matrimonial pot unable to be precisely determined due to lack of transparency – H failed to produce China bank statements – W failed to explain withdrawals and handbag sales – Add-back principle not applicable as high bar for wanton dissipation not met – Allegations turned on non-disclosure rather than dissipation – Division of assets: each party retains own assets as fairest outcome given inability to quantify – Children maintenance: 70/30 split with H paying larger portion based on higher earning capacity – Monthly payment ordered instead of lump sum – H earning capacity assessed at $237,180 to $246,900 per month – W income accepted at $103,893 per annum – H expenses assessed at $60,000 per month – W expenses assessed at $64,280 per month – Children expenses $55,000 per month per child – Standard of living considered – Duration of marriage 11 to 14 years – Contribution of parties considered – H health condition not deterrent to earning capacity – Costs: no order as to costs despite apportionment closer to W's proposal – Liberty to apply for implementation – Judgment delivered 22 January 2025 by Her Honour Judge Thelma Kwan – Applicable law Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance Cap 192 s.7 – Case law LKW v DD TCP v KLS NG v SG Moher v Moher – Principles of fairness rejection of sex discrimination yardstick of equal division – Court entitled to draw adverse inferences where disclosure deficient – Court not obliged to give precise figure for undisclosed resources – Court entitled to infer resources sufficient for fair outcome – Non-discloser should not obtain better outcome than if truth told – Court not to engage in disproportionate investigation – Add-back requires wanton and reckless dissipation – Non-accountability does not equate wanton dissipation – Court to assess financial resources as at date of hearing – Court to assess financial needs – Sharing principle applied to surplus assets – Equal division yardstick unless good reason to depart – Weight of factors matter of discretion.
Legal issues: Non-disclosure and Conduct · Add-back Principle · Division of Assets · Children Maintenance · Costs
Outcome: Ancillary relief claims dismissed; each party retains own assets; children maintenance ordered; no costs order.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 1 case