Cfh v. Ykk
Read the full judgment text of FCMC 10724/2020 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 14 October 2025 before Deputy District Judge Jeffrey Li.
Matrimonial proceedings – Ancillary relief – Asset identification – Add-backs – Non-disclosure – Earning capacity – Sharing principle – Non-matrimonial assets – Conduct – Costs – 20:80 division – Instalment payment – Short marriage – Pre-marital wealth – District Court – FCMC 10724/2020 – CFH v YKK – Wife resigned from insurance job – Husband under-reported income – Mainland properties disputed – Electronic wallets undisclosed – Court found Wife's evidence incredible on dissipation – Adverse inferences drawn against both parties – Sharing principle applied with departure due to short marriage duration – Balancing lump sum of HK$7,586,282.34 ordered payable over 36 months – No order as to costs.
Legal issues: Identification of Assets and Add-backs · Financial Needs and Earning Capacity · Application of Sharing Principle and Non-Matrimonial Assets · Conduct Allegations · Costs
Outcome: Ancillary relief awarded; Wife receives 20% of total pot; Balancing lump sum payable by instalments.
Cites 12 cases
|
FCMC 10724 / 2020 [2025] HKFC 171 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 10724 OF 2020 ----------------------------
------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------ J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------ 1.In this Judgment, I shall refer to the Petitioner-Wife as the “Wife”, and the Respondent-Husband as the “Husband”. This is the trial of the Wife’s application for ancillary relief. 2.Before proceeding further, I take this moment to address a concern arising from the conduct of this trial and to offer a cautionary word. Practitioners are encouraged to exercise discernment in advancing only those arguments properly grounded in evidence and law, rather than resorting to a scattershot approach to submissions. The Court ought not to be burdened with plainly untenable arguments simply because a party wishes to make an exhaustive presentation by leaving no stone unturned. The Court’s already limited resources ought not be utilised this way. A. BACKGROUND 3.The Husband and Wife are respectively 74 and 48 years old. They were married in March 2016 and separated in October 2019. This was a childless marriage. 4.It is common ground that despite separation, Parties initially remained living under the same roof but in separate households until June 2020. Thereafter, the Wife moved out of the former matrimonial home and into rented accommodation. 5.The Husband is the sole proprietor of an engineering company (the “Unlimited Company”) and formerly held majority shares in a related limited company in the business of construction (the “Limited Company”). It is the Husband’s case that he has retired since about 2019 and that his son from his previous marriage has taken over the operations of the Limited Company, with the Husband himself only retaining a 1% shareholding. Despite his retirement, the Husband remains to be the sole proprietor of the Unlimited Company. According to the Husband’s Opening Submissions, his monthly income is about HK$57,785. 6.The Wife has been an insurance agent in Hong Kong since 2016. In her Form E, the Wife declares that she earns about HK$5,610 on average per month. However, it is the Wife’s case that she has now tendered her resignation. This is a topic that will be analysed in further detail hereinbelow. In addition, the Wife has been receiving rental income of about RMB¥9,300 (about HK$10,230) per month. In total, her monthly income would have been about HK$15,840. 7.The Wife also had a previous marriage. In the Husband’s evidence, there are certain allegations relating to the bogus nature of the Wife’s previous marriage. I place no weight on these allegations, as they are irrelevant to the present determination of ancillary relief. 8.The Wife previously commenced divorce proceedings in FCMC 7130/2020. There, the divorce suit was defended and the Husband filed an Answer and Cross-Petition. Subsequently, leave was granted to withdraw the same, and the fresh Petition herein, on the basis of 1-year separation with consent, was filed. 9.The Decree Nisi was pronounced on 15 November 2022, and the Decree Absolute on 25 August 2023. 10.By Summons dated 8 August 2022, the Wife sought to join the Husband’s 2 sons from his previous marriage as the 2nd and 3rd Respondents for the determination of beneficial interest(s) over certain assets. By Order dated 28 June 2023, leave was granted to the Wife to withdraw the said Summons. 11.The trial of the ancillary relief was originally set down for 4-days in July 2024. However, the original trial was refixed upon the Husband’s application to file and serve a further affirmation. The trial was then refixed to the present dates. 12.At trial, the Wife was represented by Mr Cyrus Lau, and the Husband was represented by Ms Phyllis Lee. Both Counsel confirmed that this is a sharing case. Parties are in fact not far apart on their respective Open Proposal(s). This is something I will set out in detail hereinbelow. B. APPLICABLE LEGAL PRINCIPLES 13.Section 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) sets out a list of factors which the Court ought to have regard in deciding an ancillary relief award:
14.In LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537, the Court of Final Appeal laid down 4 core principles in approaching the section 7 exercise. These are:
15.Further, in approaching the section 7 exercise, the Court of Final Appeal identified a 5-step approach to be adopted:
16.It is with the above principles and concepts borne firmly in mind that this Court approaches the determination of ancillary relief. C. PARTIES’ OPEN PROPOSALS 17.By the Wife’s Open Proposal dated 27 January 2025 (the “Wife’s 1st Open Proposal”), it is proposed that the Husband shall pay the Wife a lump sum of HK$10,000,000. Alternatively, the Husband may transfer his landed properties in Hong Kong to the Wife in satisfaction of the lump sum, with the balance to be paid in cash. 18.By the Husband’s Open Proposal dated 4 February 2025 (the “Husband’s 1st Open Proposal”), it is proposed that:
19.To give context to the Husband’s 1st Open Proposal, the following are the agreed values of the abovementioned properties in Mainland China:
20.In figures therefore, together with the lump sum, the Husband’s position is in total HK$7,822,040. However, the bulk of such settlement was to be achieved by way of transfers of landed properties in Mainland China or related authorisations. 21.In figures, Parties therefore differed by about HK$2.1 million. 22.On the first day of the trial, the Husband submitted an updated Open Proposal (the “Husband’s 2nd Open Proposal”). The principal modification is that, rather than the property transfers, the Husband offers an alternative whereby the properties may be sold, with the net sale proceeds to be paid in full to the Wife. Prior to commencement of trial, the Husband further increased the lump sum from HK$500,000 to HK$1 million. Assuming the properties in question could be sold at their agreed values, the Husband’s 2nd Open Proposal, in figures, comes to HK$8,322,040. 23.The Wife also submitted an updated Open Proposal (the “Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal”). There, she reduced the lump sum from HK$10 million to HK$7.5 million, with payment terms as follows:
24.As part of the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal, she also asks for costs (including all reserved costs and outstanding unpaid cost orders) to be paid by the Husband, to be taxed if not agreed. 25.Pausing here, I consider that the Wife’s position on costs operates as a deterrent, if not also an obstacle, to the resolution of this dispute. It instills uncertainty in the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal. As at the date of the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal, no figure or breakdown of such legal costs was provided whether to the Court or to the Husband – a matter accepted by the Wife at closing. In other words, the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal had no certainty in quantum. It was only pursuant to the Wife’s Form H (filed on the 3rd day of trial upon inquiry from the Court) and closing submissions that the costs of HK$941,080 were spelt out. 26.That said, upon deciphering Parties’ 2nd Open Proposals, their respective positions, in monetary terms, are in fact quite close. In figures, the Husband offers HK$8,322,040, whereas the Wife asks for HK$8,441,080. The fundamental divergence between the Parties lies in logistics and timing, outlined as follows:
27.Through her closing submissions, the Wife further revised her updated Open Proposal (the “Wife’s 3rd Open Proposal”). In terms of the lump sum, the Wife invited the Court to “award a more advantageous sum to W – which can be up to HK$12,000,000”. 28.For the Husband, a 2nd updated Open Proposal was also put forward in closing (the “Husband’s 3rd Open Proposal”) in the following terms:
29.In other words, the main change is that the Husband no longer insists on the transfer or sale of the 1/F and 2/F Shops. He, however, maintains the transfer of the Residential Land. With the Residential Land having an agreed value of HK$2,922,040, the Husband’s offer is therefore back to HK$7,922,040 – a figure similar to his 1st Open Proposal in quantum. 30.I am mindful that despite the Open Proposals put forward by the Parties at different stages of the trial, I am not bound by the respective proposals: LSM v CMP FCMC 7040/2011 (unrep., 21 September 2015) per Deputy District Judge I. Wong (as HH Judge I. Wong then was) at §§14-16. D. CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES 31.The Parties were the only witnesses. In assessing their evidence, I have borne in mind the well-established principles discussed in the authorities, such as Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd HCA 1734/2009 (unrep., 8 April 2014) at §§77-83. 32.Having heard their evidence, I find neither of the Parties to be entirely credible witnesses. To highlight in particular:
33.I shall address the credibility of both Parties’ evidence by topic hereinbelow. E. STEP 1: IDENTIFICATION OF THE ASSETS 34.Parties produced an Agreed and Disputed Schedule of Assets and Liability. E1. Agreed Assets and Liabilities 35.The Agreed Pot comes to HK$36,264,065. Of this, the Husband’s share is HK$35,686,316.8, and the Wife’s is HK$577,748.2. 36.Most of the Agreed Pot is illiquid. On the Husband’s side, HK$31,408,522 (or 88% of the Agreed Pot) is in the form of landed properties. The Husband’s portfolio is summarised as follows.
37.As to the Wife’s portfolio, it is summarised as follows.
E2. Disputed Assets and Liabilities 1/F and 2/F Shops 38.These are properties in Mainland China. Parties agree that the values of the 1/F and 2/F Shops are respectively HK$2,750,000 and HK$1,650,000, amounting to HK$4,400,000 in aggregate. Despite Parties’ acquisition, there was no formal transfer of titles. The 2 properties remain legally held by the previous owner, one Madam Wong. 39.It is common ground that Parties own the beneficial interests in these 2 properties. The only point of divide is who, i.e. the Husband or the Wife, owns such beneficial interest. 40.The Wife’s position is that she owns the entire beneficial interest in these 2 properties. She says that she contributed RMB¥1,450,000 to the acquisition of the 2/F Shops and that the 1/F Shops were gifted to her by the Husband. 41.In support of her contention, the Wife produced evidence of the payment of RMB¥400,000. This was paid directly to the vendor, Madam Wong. As to the remaining RMB¥1,050,000, the Wife explained that she had paid this sum to the Husband, who onward paid it to Madam Wong. The Wife says that the source of such funds was the sale of another property owned by her in Mainland China. 42.The Husband denies both allegations. He maintains that he owns the entire beneficial interest in the 1/F and 2/F Shops, although the Wife was permitted to handle leasing matters and to collect rent for her own use. He contends that the Wife’s purchase funds originated from him, asserting that although the Wife made a direct payment of RMB¥400,000 and transferred RMB¥1,050,000 to him, these amounts were in fact his funds. 43.Pausing here, I find argument over the above point to be unconstructive. Neither Party is contending that the 1/F and/or 2/F Shops is or are non-matrimonial in nature, or are to be ringfenced from division. In such a case, the 1/F and 2/F Shops remain to be marital assets which are to be shared. Accordingly, a determination of who, of the Parties, owns beneficial interests in these properties helps nothing. 44.On the first day of trial, the Court queried the relevancy of the above dispute in resolving this ancillary relief suit. Whether the beneficial interests rest with the Husband or the Wife, Parties are in agreement that the 1/F and 2/F Shops form part of Parties’ assets. Given that the 1/F and 2/F Shops are held by a 3rd party who has not been joined to these proceedings, i.e. Madam Wong, the Court has no jurisdiction to direct a transfer of these Shops anyway. It is also to be noted that these are landed properties situated in Mainland China. 45.In response to this, Counsel for the Husband agreed. However, Counsel for the Wife argued that a determination of beneficial interest (i.e. beneficially belonging to the Husband, or the Wife) would be relevant to the Wife’s needs case. With respect, this is difficult to follow. First, Parties are in agreement that this is a sharing case. Second, irrespective of any finding on who owns beneficial interest in the 1/F and 2/F Shops, these assets form part of the pot and are to be factored into the ancillary relief exercise in any event. Particularly pertinent is that the Wife is not seeking the transfer of the 1/F and 2/F Shops to her in any event. It is therefore not understood why the Court is to determine the issue of beneficial interest between spouses. 46.Be that as it may, my finding bears out the credibility of the Parties. Whilst I find it unnecessary to make a determination of who (as between the Parties) owns beneficial interest in these properties for reasons I have mentioned above, I find the Husband’s evidence much more likely and credible. My reasons are as follows. 47.First, there is no dispute that the Husband paid for, at least, the 1/F Shops. Apart from the Wife’s mere say-so, there is no evidence of this being a gift. The only circumstantial evidence is that the Wife was permitted to handle leasing, maintenance etc affairs of the 1/F and 2/F Shops and to collect and pocket the rent. However, this is consistent with the Husband’s case, namely that he acquired these properties so that the Wife could earn rental income therefrom. 48.Second, according to the Letter of Authorisation (委托書) in respect of the 2/F Shops, the Husband (and not the Wife) was vested with wide powers equivalent to and/or assimilating those enjoyed by a property owner. Were the Wife’s contention true – namely that she funded and beneficially owns the 2/F Shops – it is improbable that she would have allowed sole authorisation to be granted to the Husband without including herself. This reasoning likewise holds true had the Husband in fact gifted her the 1/F Shops. 49.On this point, the Wife explained that had she been the authorised person, as a matter of Mainland law or policy, the 2 properties could not be transferred into her name in the future without triggering substantial taxes. However, no expert evidence of Mainland law or policy was adduced. In cross-examination, the Husband first denied knowledge of such Mainland law or policy but later appeared to agree. Nonetheless, it is also the Husband’s evidence that in acquiring the 1/F and 2/F Shops, no one apart from him was envisaged to be the authorised person. 50.Third, despite her case, the Wife has at no stage contended that Parties agreed upon or contemplated a definitive schedule for effecting such transfer of the registered owner. 51.Having considered all the circumstances and evidence on point, I prefer the Husband’s case. 52.Thus, for calculation purposes, the 1/F and 2/F Shops, with their combined agreed value of HK$4,400,000, are to be attributed to the Husband’s portfolio. Husband’s Bank of China 6217 Account; Bank of China 6251 Account; Citibank 5082 Account 53.According to the Agreed and Disputed Schedule of Assets and Liability, the Wife’s grievance on the Accounts in question is as follows:
54.Thus, the only issue is whether these are credit cards. In H’s Answer, apart from the Citibank 5082 Account, he has already deposed that these are credit cards. In cross-examination, he further deposed that the Citibank 5082 Account, too, was also a credit card, though at one point he did say that this is a bank card. 55.I accept that these are credit cards. In any event, absent any basis to infer that these Accounts hold funds or that there is any other impropriety surrounding these Accounts, I accept that these Accounts are empty and therefore value them at HK$0. Citibank 4791 Account 56.As to the Citibank 4791 Account, the Wife’s grievance is that the Husband has not produced the relevant credit card statements. On this basis, the Wife asks the Court to draw an adverse inference that the Husband has concealed assets and income. 57.In CCYL v CCSR [2023] 1 HKC 335, HH Judge I. Wong stated that:
58.In TCP v KLS [2020] HKFC 67, HH Judge I. Wong summarised the legal principles on non-disclosure. The approach has been consistently applied by the Court. Recently, in WKC v KHC [2025] HKFC 20, HH Judge T. Kwan, having referred to TCP v KLS, further distilled the following principles:
59.Having the above principles in mind, my analysis is as follows. There is no dispute that this is indeed a credit card and not a bank account. There is no evidence that this credit card is used to hold funds. The Husband’s aggregate monthly spending on the card can be seen in the Husband’s Citibank bank statements, which have been produced. The only additional thing that would be shown by production of the credit card statements are the actual transaction details. 60.Whilst I accept that the Husband’s failure to produce these statements falls short of Form E requirements, I do not agree with the Wife that the circumstances justify drawing the inference that the Husband has concealed assets and income. Husband’s Prudential Brokerage Account 61.By the Husband’s 2nd Form E, he disclosed being the holder of a Prudential Brokerage Account with a value of HK$320,250. In the Wife’s 3rd Questionnaire filed in December 2023, she requested production of statements relating to this account. Six months later, in the Husband’s Answer filed in June 2024, he deposed that the account was closed in the same month, i.e. June 2024, and that no statements could therefore be produced. 62.In cross-examination, the Husband explained that he no longer invested in securities and therefore closed the account. It was put to the Husband that he closed the account knowing that the Wife sought production of its statements and that his act of closing the account with the said knowledge was to hide his assets. 63.Having considered the course of events, I see force in the Wife’s contention. By December 2023, the Husband would have known that the Wife was seeking disclosure of his Prudential Brokerage Account statements. Yet, instead of producing those statements in his Answer, the Husband simply closed the account and refused to produce any statement whatsoever. The only piece of documentary evidence before the Court on this account is the statement dated June 2023. 64.Compounding matters, though the Husband stated under cross-examination that the balance would have been deposited into his Citibank account, he did not produce Citibank bank statements covering that period or that transaction. Even if it is true that the Husband could not obtain the relevant Prudential Brokerage Account statements due to its account closure, he would have been in a position to produce his Citibank account statements to make good his case. The whole course of events justifies an adverse inference to be drawn. 65.As to the value of this account, Parties are also in disagreement. The Husband says that it is worth HK$320,250, whereas the Wife says that the HK$320,250 only represents the value of securities held in that account. The Wife says that on top of securities, there is a cash balance of HK$456,837.55. Accordingly, the Wife says that the total value of this account was, as at June 2023, HK$777,087.55. 66.According to the only statement produced, the HK$320,250 figure came under the value of investments (投資組合擇要). This was the representative figure of the Husband’s securities portfolio, being 5,000 shares in China Mobile. On the other hand, the HK$456,837.55 figure came under the account balance (戶口結餘摘要). Therein, the figure of HK$456,837.55 was clearly attributed to Hong Kong Dollars cash balance – distinct from investments or securities. Moreover, under the transaction details section of the statement, it is clearly stated that the previous cash balance was HK$446,656,24, which increased to HK$456,837.55 following dividends declared that month. 67.In view of the above, I consider that the value of this Prudential Brokerage Account is HK$777,087.55. Further, in the circumstances as I have mentioned hereinabove, I take the view it is justified to draw the adverse inference against the Husband that he still holds the said amount and it is to be attributed to his financial portfolio. Husband’s Hang Seng Bank Investments 68.There is no room for argument on this. In the Husband’s Hang Seng Bank account, he holds HK$311,440 worth of bonds and/or investments. This item, however, was omitted from the Joint Schedule of Assets and Liabilities. It is to be added back. Husband’s Hang Seng Bank Life Insurance Policy 69.Under the Husband’s 2nd Form E, he disclosed a life insurance policy with Hang Seng Bank. However, the Husband failed to attribute any value to this policy. When asked to provide the surrender value of this policy, he stated in his Answer that he would inquire with Hang Seng Bank and revert. He has not done so. In these circumstances, I see no alternative but to draw an adverse inference against the Husband regarding the value of this policy. 70.Reading the policy document, it appears that the Husband would receive a “Monthly Guaranteed Income” of HK$4,488 for the period of 20 years. There is no mention of any surrender value.
71.I find neither suggestion to be fair. The Husband’s proposal ignores any future income, whilst the Wife’s proposal appears to take full account of both past and future income. 72.Doing the best I can, I take the view that attaching half of its “Total Guaranteed Income”, i.e. taking account of pay-outs up to 2029, to be fair. This would provide a sufficient safeguard against what is often referred to in precedents as the “cheat’s charter”. I therefore attach a value of HK$538,560 to this policy. This amount is to be attributed to the Husband’s financial portfolio. Husband’s AIA Insurance Policy 73.Under the Husband’s 2nd Form E, he disclosed a medical insurance policy with AIA. However, the Husband failed to attribute any value to this policy. In these circumstances, I have no alternative but to draw an adverse inference against him regarding the value of this policy. 74.According to the policy document, the value of the policy as of 20 May 2021 is stated to be US$13,503.34 (i.e. about HK$105,326). This, however, is a valuation dating back almost 4 years ago. 75.The Wife asks the Court to draw an adverse inference that the Husband can surrender this policy for “much more than HK$105,326”. This ambiguity in the Wife’s position led the Court to inquire whether she had a specific valuation to put forward for this policy, to which Counsel for the Wife answered in the negative. On this, if the Wife argues that an adverse inference is due, then it is also incumbent on the Wife to propose a figure for the Court’s consideration. 76.Be that as it may, noting that the Husband pays US$228.20 per month for this policy, he would have contributed about US$10,269 (45 months) since the date of the policy document. Doing the best I can, I took the preliminary view that the value of this policy is US$13,503.34 plus US$10,269 equals US$23,772.34 (or about HK$185,424.25). This figure is to be rounded up to HK$186,000. 77.When provided with the Court’s preliminary view, both Parties accepted and agreed the above figure to be the value of the AIA policy. Accordingly, I attach a value of HK$186,000 to this policy. This amount is to be attributed to the Husband’s financial portfolio. Wife’s Dissipation of HK$372,750 between September 2019 and July 2020 78.The Husband says that the Wife has dissipated HK$372,750, and that this sum is to be added back to the Wife’s side of the financial portfolio. This complaint roots in the Wife’s contention that she has “forgotten” the nature and/or purpose of transactions totalling HK$372,750. The Wife conversely argues that the Husband has put forward no evidence to support the claim that the Wife has dissipated such sums in a reckless and wanton manner. 79.The law in relation to add-backs has recently been summarised in the judgment of HH Judge T. Kwan in KKSR v CLH also known as ZL [2024] HKFLR 24 at §§159-162. Of particular relevance is the Two Stage Approach quoted from LCC v LTLA [2024] HKCA 406 per Madam Justice B. Chu (as she then was) therein at §160:
80.The Wife’s evidence of her lapse of memory on the transactions in question handicaps the Husband’s case for add-back. The failure to give any explanation means there is no established fact on which the conduct threshold can be met. If the Wife shall succeed on this argument, this is the “cheat’s charter” that the cases warn against. 81.Nonetheless, the quality of the Wife’s evidence must be scrutinized. This boils down to an assessment and analysis of whether the Wife’s explanation of “forgotten” is credible. Having considered the issue holistically, I do not accept the Wife’s case. My considerations include the following:
82.Having found her to be incredible on this point, the Wife’s hollow evidence thus amounts to a refusal to answer, constituting a breach of her positive duty of full and frank disclosure. This duty falls squarely on the Wife to explain her finances in a full, frank and clear manner. In saying she has “forgotten”, the Wife attempted no explanation on the purpose and/or destination of her withdrawals. The Wife cannot prevail by obscuring her own breach of duty through conflating it with the Husband’s evidentiary burden to establish wantonness and recklessness. 83.I thus draw the adverse inference that the Wife has deliberately concealed the details relating to the subject sums. I find that she is still in possession of the HK$372,250. This amount is to be attributed to the Wife’s financial portfolio. W’s Loans 84.The Wife claims that she has three outstanding loans: two owed to friends and one to her younger sister. I shall deal with these in turn. 85.The first among these is a loan of HK$350,000. According to the Wife, she borrowed this sum from her friend, Madam Lai, in September 2022. The Wife contends that Madam Lai originally agreed to lend her HK$450,000 and transferred this amount to the Wife’s bank account, but Madam Lai subsequently decided that she would only lend the Wife HK$350,000. Therefore, the Wife immediately withdrew HK$100,000 and repaid Madam Lai. The net outstanding amount is, per the Wife’s case, HK$350,000. 86.I do not accept that this should be a loan that should be taken into account in the ancillary relief exercise for the following reasons:
87.The second of these loans is a loan of HK$70,000. The Wife claims that in June 2024, she borrowed HK$70,000 from her friend, Madam Chu for legal fees. In this case, I take the view that legal fees are to be dealt with under costs of the ancillary relief suit. Should this loan be deducted from the Wife’s side of the portfolio in computing the ancillary relief award, this would mean that the Wife could recover (or be reimbursed) part of her legal fees regardless of the costs order to be made. I find this unfair, especially in the context of this case where the Husband has not taken out any loan for his legal fees. I thus do not accept that this loan should be taken into account in ancillary relief. 88.Likewise for the alleged loan from her younger sister of HK$60,000, which the Wife also claims are for legal fees. For similar reasons as above, I do not accept that this should be a loan that should be deducted from the Wife’s side of the portfolio. W’s Gold Pieces 89.It is common ground that the Husband has gifted the Wife pieces of gold, weighing a total of 5 taels. On the Wife’s case, she has gifted 2 pieces to her Mother in mid- 2019 and the remaining 3 pieces were sold in early- 2023 for HK$42,000. The Wife claims she used the sale proceeds for her living expenses. 90.I am unpersuaded by the Wife’s case. On her case, she held at least the remaining 3 pieces of gold until early- 2023. However, by the Wife’s Form E dated 15 October 2020, no such valuable was declared. This is non-disclosure. Then, amidst these ancillary relief proceedings, she alleges to have sold the same while producing no documentary evidence in support. This failure is particularly notable given her legal representation throughout. 91.Further, in early- 2023, the Wife was still working as an insurance agent. Until June 2024, she received full rental income from the 1/F and 2/F Shops. In other words, there has been no major change in her income. Having considered the relevant circumstances, I find the contention that the Wife had to sell the gold pieces to cover her living expenses to be unconvincing. I also find that it is justified in the circumstances to draw an adverse inference that the Wife still holds the 3 pieces of gold, worth HK$42,000. This is to be attributed to her financial portfolio. Electronic Wallets 92.In cross-examination, both the Wife and the Husband admitted to having electronic wallets. Neither Party made disclosure of their electronic wallets. This is obviously a component of their financial disclosure that ought to have been done. 93.For the Wife, her case is that she receives rental payments from tenants through her WeChat wallet. For the Husband, he says that the funds in his WeChat wallet are for his use in Mainland China. 94.I take note that a significant portion of the Wife’s income has been the rental income of the 1/F and 2/F Shops. Given her evidence that these are received in her WeChat wallet, I take the view that she would have accumulated a significant sum there. 95.Contrastingly, the Husband does not receive his income through the WeChat wallets. His income is paid and received in Hong Kong, and his rental income can be seen in his Mainland bank statements. I take the view that the Husband’s balance in his WeChat wallet would be relatively less than the Wife’s. 96.I am however unable to come to any specific quantum given the lack of evidence in this regard. Therefore, whilst I draw no specific adverse inference on the amount, I will bear the above in mind in deciding the outcome of this ancillary relief suit. Other Conduct and Adverse Inferences Sought by the Wife 97.In addition to the above, the Wife sought to attribute further assets to the Husband’s side of the financial portfolio in her closing submissions. I shall deal with them as follows. 98.First, the Wife disagrees with the booked depreciation of HK$905,319 for a car in the financial statement of the Unlimited Company. In cross-examination, the Husband admitted that this is in fact his own car. 99.However, as mentioned above, the subject company is an Unlimited Company. It is not a separate legal entity. Moreover, it had not been disputed that the car indeed depreciated by HK$905,319. If this was disputed and proven, I would agree that this has an effect on the valuation of the Unlimited Company, or the Husband’s side of the financial portfolio. It was not. I therefore see no reason to attribute or make any adjustment under this item. I see no impropriety in such accounting exercise. 100.Second, based on the Husband’s payment records and cross-examination evidence, the Wife contends that the Husband has hidden insurance policies. 101.Central to the Wife’s argument is the alleged excess of payments over the number of insurance policies. However, the Husband was not cross-examined on whether each insurance policy would only require a single payment per month. Further, under cross-examination concerning the allegedly concealed policies, the Husband remained unshaken in his account. In the circumstances, I do not find that the Husband has undisclosed insurance policies. 102.Third, the Wife contends that the Husband had previously given an inaccurate valuation of the Limited Company in his Form E. I agree. Nevertheless, I find this of little relevance to the current ancillary relief exercise, since the Parties eventually agreed on the very figure the Wife herself proposed as accurate. 103.Fourth, the Wife requests the Court to draw the adverse inference that the Husband has concealed income and/or assets connected to the two transactions he could not recall. These are (1) a deposit of RMB¥1,218,231.67, and (2) a withdrawal of RMB¥1,210,000, in the Husband’s China Construction Bank account. 104.The evidence clearly shows these transactions, both the deposit and withdrawal, were effected on the same day through the same bank account. According to the bank statement, the payor and the recipient is the Husband himself. In other words, this was an internal transfer. I thus do not agree that the Husband’s failure to recall these transactions warrants an adverse inference. 105.Given the above, there is no basis to infer that the Husband has concealed or has any hidden funds. E3. Total Pot Size 106.In light of the analysis above, the following assets are to be attributed to the Husband’s portfolio:
107.For the Wife:
108.The Pot thus becomes HK$42,891,402.82. Of this, the Husband’s share is HK$41,899,404.59, and the Wife HK$991,998.23.
F. STEP 2: PARTIES’ FINANCIAL NEEDS 109.As mentioned above, Parties agree that this is a sharing case and that Parties’ financial resources are sufficient to meet their reasonable needs. Parties ask for a clean break settlement. The analysis hereunder will therefore focus on the headline disputes, given that these were argued by the Parties. 110.Pursuant to the Agreed Table of Income and Expenditure dated 24 January 2025 (the “I&E Table”), Parties’ respective positions can be summarised as follows:
111.On the figures therefore, neither Party maintains a sustainable financial position. For reasons to be set out below, I find that the Wife has hidden income and/or financial resources, and that the Husband, too, has under-reported his income. F1. The Wife’s Income / Earning Capacity / Financial Resources 112.As a matter of background, the Wife is currently 48 years old. On her case, she was an insurance agent until January 2025, when she tendered her resignation. Since then, she has relied on the reported rental income of RMB¥9,300. 113.I harbour doubts regarding the Wife’s motive for resigning in January 2025. The Wife claims that she resigned because the Husband had lodged a complaint with the Wife’s insurance agency and the Insurance Authority. Under cross-examination, she explained that she felt it was embarrassing to stay in the same insurance agency and therefore tendered her resignation. 114.Upon closer examination of the evidence, it appears that whilst the Husband did indeed lodge a complaint against the Wife, this was done back in August 2024. By October 2024, the relevant Market Conduct Committee had already concluded that the Husband’s claims were unsubstantiated. 115.The Wife’s resignation in January 2025 – three months after the complaint was found to be unsubstantiated – lacks credible justification. Had genuine embarrassment been the Wife’s motivation, she would have resigned immediately in August 2024 when the complaint was filed, or, in any event, prior to the Market Conduct Committee’s determination exonerating her. 116.Given inter alia the timing of the Wife’s resignation, I take the view that the Wife tendered her resignation with an ulterior motive, namely, to artificially reduce her income for the purposes of this ancillary relief trial, thereby potentially inflating her ancillary relief claim. 117.Second, I find that the Wife could in any event resume working as an insurance agent going forward. The Wife’s skillset as an insurance agent would not have perished in this short span of time. She has, until her resignation, worked in Hong Kong as an insurance agent for around 9 years. I find that the Wife could resume working as an insurance agent and earn a similar income as she did prior to her resignation. 118.Third, apart from the “forgotten” transactions amounting to HK$372,250 as analysed above, the Wife has frequent and significant withdrawals. These come to HK$407,000 between the months of October 2023 and May 2024. 119.The Wife explains that this HK$407,000 relates to her assisting friends with currency exchange. Her evidence is that she would at times receive Renminbi cash from her friends and subsequently withdraw the Hong Kong Dollars equivalent from her bank account in Hong Kong. 120.I do not accept such currency exchange arrangement for the following reasons:
121.Having considered the whole course of events and lack of evidence, I find the “currency exchange arrangement” highly suspicious and do not accept such claim(s). 122.I further maintain consideration of the Husband’s evidence regarding the Wife’s business partnership with Madam Lai, which I have accepted above. 123.The circumstances justify the drawing of an adverse inference against the Wife. I find that these deposits and withdrawals represent the Wife’s income and expenses. Alternatively, I draw the adverse inference that the Wife possesses hidden financial resources sufficient to maintain her monthly expenditure. F2. The Wife’s Expenses 124.Pursuant to the Joint Table of Income and Expenditure, the Wife’s declared monthly expenses are as follows:
125.The Husband disputes the Wife’s declared expenses for (1) rent, and (2) holiday. For these items, the Husband counter-proposes HK$3,000 and HK$800 respectively. 126.First, as to rental expenses, the Husband contends that this does not represent the Wife’s actual expenditure, but merely the Wife’s prospective housing budget. In the Wife’s evidence, she accepts that since she moved out of the FMH in 2020, she has been residing at a rented accommodation costing HK$3,000 per month and that this has been the case for the past four years. During cross-examination, the Wife also stated that the budget of HK$16,000 was for a 3-bedroom flat, which would serve, too, as her Mother’s accommodation. It was argued on behalf of the Wife that she “should not be criticised for her preference to rent a more spacious flat…”. 127.I do not agree that the Wife is simply “renting a more spacious flat”. It is entirely unfair for the Wife to attempt to factor into the rental budget her Mother’s share of such expenses. After all, never during the marriage did Parties reside with the Wife’s Mother, and the Wife provided no justification for why the Husband should bear responsibility for the Wife’s obligations towards her Mother upon divorce. 128.Whilst I do not agree that the proposed budget of HK$16,000 is reasonable in the circumstances, given my finding at Section F1 above that the Wife can financially sustain herself, I nevertheless take the view that if she can afford to “rent a more spacious flat”, then she can by all means do so. It remains her own decision, but this is not to affect the Husband in ancillary relief. For the avoidance of doubt, I find HK$3,000 for rent to be reasonable. This has been the case for four years already. 129.Second, regarding holiday expenses, the Wife declared the amount of HK$100 as her monthly holiday expense in both her 1st and 2nd Form Es. Only in the Joint Table of Income and Expenditure had this expense been adjusted to HK$2,000. 130.The Wife has put forward no acceptable justification for this twenty-fold increase in expense. In the Wife’s evidence, she conceded that her travel would be restricted to Mainland China. The Husband’s proposed budget of HK$800 would provide the Wife with an annual budget of around HK$9,600. I consider this a fair amount. 131.In summary, I find that the Wife’s reasonable expenses come to HK$22,148 per month. F3. The Husband’s Income / Earning Capacity / Financial Resources 132.The Husband claims to have monthly income of about HK$57,785. At closing, the Husband revised this to HK$76,215.17. The Wife takes issue with the Husband’s declared level of income. She says that the Husband instead earns (or could earn) HK$125,000 for the following reasons. 133.First, the Wife contends that despite the Husband’s case of having retired in 2019 or 2020, he remains to be involved in the operations of the Limited Company. The Wife refers to the Husband’s involvement in the movement(s) of funds between the Unlimited Company and the Limited Company. 134.On this, I take note that the Limited Company was incepted by the Husband. The majority of shares in the Limited Company had, since 2020, been transferred to the Husband’s son. It is evidently a family company. Despite having transferred 99% of shares in the Limited Company to his son, the Husband remains to be a 1% shareholder and a director. By reason of the aforesaid, I do not find it helpful for the Wife to point to certain participation and/or involvement on the part of the Husband to be automatically in conflict with the Husband’s case that he has retired. On the evidence, the Husband provides assistance to his son in operating the Limited Company, and managed some transfer(s) of funds on the instructions and/or at the request of the son. This does not necessarily mean the Husband has not retired. There is no evidence that he has active involvement which could approximate to working in the Limited Company. Moreover, it is not the Husband’s case that he has ceased all work and completely retired. The Husband remains to operate the Unlimited Company. With the said context in mind, I do not accept the Wife’s contention. 135.Second, the Wife claims that the Husband receives an income from the Unlimited Company. This is in fact accepted by the Husband but to a lesser extent. By the Wife’s case, the Husband’s income from the Unlimited Company should be calculated by averaging the revenue earned between 2019 and 2023, i.e. HK$33,167. The Husband, on the other hand, relies solely on the latest accounting document to say that his income from the Unlimited Company is HK$29,090.17 per month. This figure is a combination of the Husband’s salary and the profit made by the Unlimited Company. 136.I prefer the Husband’s case. After all, the Unlimited Company has its operating expenses. It is therefore unfair to simply average the revenue. Moreover, it is the Husband’s case (and I accept) that he has retired since 2019 or 2020. The Wife’s reliance on accounting documents dating back to 2019 and 2020 straddles the period when the Husband was retiring. To use these documents to depict the Husband’s current income would therefore be unreliable and unfair. I therefore find that the Husband’s income from the Unlimited Company is HK$29,090.17 per month. 137.Third, the Wife claims that the Husband receives rental income from the SW Property, a property defined and analysed in greater detail hereinbelow. Suffice it to say for the present purposes, this is a nine-storey property, and it is agreed that the 1st to 8th Floors are let out as commercial premises to generate rental income. 138.The Husband’s case on this is that he receives RMB¥40,000 rental income from the SW Property. The Wife says that the Husband in fact receives around RMB¥57,334.32 per month. In so computing, the Wife refers to the Husband’s bank statements. Referring to the relevant tenancy agreements, the Wife submits that the Husband should be receiving RMB¥60,000 per month. 139.Having gone through the documentary evidence, I prefer the Wife’s case. From the evidence, however, some fluctuations can be seen in the amount received by the Husband month by month. I find that the Husband has rental income of about RMB¥60,000 (or HK$66,000) from the SW Property. I shall take note of the said fluctuations where relevant. 140.Fourth, the Wife contends that, given the Husband claims that he is the beneficial owner of the 1/F and 2/F Shops, the Husband will be receiving rental income going forward, which should be factored in. This accounts for RMB¥18,000 (or HK$19,800). 141.I do not agree this to be is fair. Upon the ancillary relief determination herein, the 1/F and 2/F Shops may have to be sold to create liquidity. Thus, such rental income may not exist going forward. Whilst I will not ignore the possibility of such rental income, I will not take such income as a matter of course in considering the Husband’s monthly income. 142.Fifth, the Wife contends that the Husband’s Mainland property (十里銀灘) could be let out for RMB¥1,250 (or HK$1,375) per month. I do not accept this. In the Husband’s evidence, he has marketed the property for rent for many months and has been unable to let it out. The reality of the situation is obvious. In these circumstances, I do not find it fair to attribute this rental income as the Husband’s income going forward. 143.It is not disputed that the Husband receives (1) old age allowance of HK$1,570 per month, and (2) HKMC annuity of HK$3,125 per month. 144.Summarising all the above, I find that the Husband has monthly income of HK$99,785.17. F4. The Husband’s Expenses 145.Pursuant to the Joint Table of Income and Expenditure, the Husband’s declared monthly expenses are as follows:
146.The Wife disputes the Husband’s declared expenses for (1) vehicle expenses, and (2) insurance premia. 147.First, on vehicle expenses, the Wife’s position is that since the Husband parks his car at home, the declared amount of HK$15,000 would be just for fuel – an amount which the Wife contends is excessive. When cross-examined, the Husband testified that fuel costs account for around HK$10,000 to HK$11,000 of the HK$15,000 budget. The Husband further explained that his car is a 4-wheel drive with a large capacity engine, and as a consequence, higher fuel consumption. The remainder of the budget was for tolls and repairs. 148.Although I see reason in the Husband’s contentions, I find the Husband’s budget to be on the high side. Further, the Husband has failed to produce evidence substantiating the above expenses. Doing the best I can on the available evidence, I adopt a figure of HK$10,000 for this item of expenditure. 149.Second, pursuant to the Joint Table of Income and Expenditure, the Wife challenges the Husband’s insurance expenses on the basis that they are “subject to proof by [the Husband] as this was not raised before”. 150.The Husband’s Updated Form E indeed contained no declared expenditure for insurance. However, in the Husband’s 1st Form E, he did declare the amount of HK$3,200 as his insurance expenses. 151.Given that it is undisputed the Husband does hold a number of insurance policies, I accept the amount of HK$4,221.37 as now declared. In any event, pursuant to my findings at Section F3 above as to the Husband’s income, whether or not this expense exists does not affect my decision on the Husband’s financial sustainability. 152.In summary, I find that the Husband’s reasonable expenses come to HK$74,521.37 per month. 153.On the above analysis, I find that both Parties’ financial resources are sufficient to meet their needs. G. APPLICATION OF THE SHARING PRINCIPLE / DEPARTURE FROM EQUALITY 154.Having concluded as above, I proceed to consider the appropriate division of assets. In doing so, I bear in mind all the core principles in the relevant cases, including but not limited to the following. 155.As is trite, the duration of the marriage is a major factor in the section 7 exercise. In LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537, Ribeiro PJ stated at §§108-109 that:
156.Likewise, in WLK v TMC (2010) 13 HKCFAR 618 per Ribeiro PJ:
157.In PW v PPTW CACV 224/2013 (unrep., 12 March 2015), Kwan JA (as Kwan V-P then was) stated that:
158.Counsel for the Wife referred to the case of E v L (Financial Remedies) [2022] 1 FLR 952, in which Mostyn J, on the topic of sharing of matrimonial property, stated inter alia that:
159.The above is consistent with the approach adopted in Hong Kong. 160.The judgment of HH Judge I. Wong in SSLT v SMFC [2019] HKFLR 458 is also instructive. Of particular relevance are the following principles:
161.In the course of drafting this Judgment, the UK Supreme Court’s judgment in Standish v Standish [2025] UKSC 26 was handed down. Of particular importance for the present case is the Supreme Court’s statement of principle that:
162.This approach has yet been adopted in Hong Kong. Whilst persuasive, I remain bound to apply the local jurisprudence as set out above. G1. Duration of the Marriage 163.Parties were married for about 3.5 years. It is the Wife’s case that since late 2013 or early 2014, Parties commenced premarital cohabitation and transitioned seamlessly into marriage. On such basis, the Wife asks the Court to approach the present marriage as a marriage of about 6 years. 164.Pausing here, even with a marriage of “about 6 years”, this is neither long nor short: SSLT v SMFC at §170. 165.In WLK v TMC (2010) 13 HKCFAR 618, Ribeiro PJ stated that:
166.It is the Wife’s case that she met the Husband in about September 2013. Two months later in November 2013, they began cohabiting – first with the Husband moving into the Wife’s residence in the Mainland and subsequently with her moving into to his residence in Tsuen Wan. 167.In support of the Wife’s case, she refers to how she would drive the Husband to his workplace(s), how she was involved in the Husband’s business and household matters. The Wife says that during the weekends, they would travel together to the Mainland. 168.The Husband denies any pre-marital cohabitation which approximates to cohabitation as a married couple. He claims that Parties would stay together for 2 to 3 nights a week, yet his own affirmation evidence admits that the Wife moved into (“搬入”) his Tsuen Wan residence in 2014. Under cross-examination, the Husband explained that what he said in his affirmation should be understood as referring to the Wife spending 1-2 nights per week at his Tsuen Wan residence. The Husband denies that the Wife drove him to his workplace(s) or was otherwise involved in his business or his household matters, but accepts that the Wife did go once or twice a month to the construction site(s) at which the Husband worked, and irregularly to his warehouse. 169.Having considered Parties’ respective evidence, I do not accept that there was pre-marital cohabitation which approximates to cohabitation as a married couple. In so finding, I have considered the following factors:
170.Accordingly, I find the relevant duration of the marriage to be 3.5 years. G2. Non-Matrimonial Properties 171.As found above, the Pot comes to HK$42,891,402.82. This comprises the Husband’s share of HK$41,899,404.59 and the Wife’s share of HK$991,998.23. 172.Of the Husband’s share, HK$35,808,452 is in landed properties. The remaining comprises of bank balances, companies, and other assets. His liquid assets are mainly in the form of cash in the bank amounting to HK$2,606,883.62. 173.First, the Wife’s submissions generally advance the proposition that the landed properties acquired or “constructed” (her Counsel’s terminology) during the marriage are marital acquests and are therefore subject to division. She also maintains that the Husband’s other assets, including his bank accounts, companies, and insurance policies, are matrimonial assets. 174.I have reservations on this line of argument. The Husband married the Wife when he was about 65 or 66 years old. By then, he had already accumulated much of the wealth he now owns. He applied these accumulated wealth in the acquisition of certain landed properties during the marriage. But this alone does not make such properties marital acquest. Absent evidence of the Wife’s monetary contribution, the funds used to acquire landed properties during the marriage would have (at least partly) originated from the Husband’s savings or investments accumulated prior to their marriage. In other words, these landed properties were not entirely the fruits of Parties’ joint efforts or marital acquests. In these circumstances, I do not agree it is fair or just to simply find that landed properties acquired, built (or “constructed”, her Counsel’s terminology) during the marriage to be matrimonial assets and be distributed as such. 175.This similarly applies to the Husband’s other assets, such as insurance policies, interests in companies, and his bank accounts. I do not find it fair to simply categorise these as marital acquests given the background of this case, the shortness of the marriage, and in particular how the Husband has accumulated his wealth before meeting the Wife. 176.Notwithstanding the above, it is not the function of the Court to attempt to undertake any form of forensic accounting exercise in pursuit of the precise dividing line amidst these properties. To achieve fairness, I will take the above into account in arriving at the final ancillary relief award, where I will give holistic consideration to all the circumstances of the case. 177.Second, Parties are in agreement that the following are matrimonial assets:
178.There also appears no quarrel between Parties that the following assets are non-matrimonial and are not subject to division:
179.Third, the Residential Land with the value of HK$2,922,040 was not intermingled with the Pot. Apart from it having been acquired during the marriage, there is no contention that it was put to the family’s use or otherwise generated income which in turn was utilised towards the family. 180.The Husband however does not quarrel over the matrimonial nature of this property. I accordingly so find. 181.Fourth, the major point of divide between the Parties is the treatment of the SW Property. This is a property situated at Guangzhou. Its agreed value is HK$16,736,412 (the “SW Property”). The headline facts are as follows:
182.Distilling the Wife’s case, her main contention for the inclusion of the SW Property as matrimonial property is that it served as a 2nd FMH for a few years and that she made certain payments related to its construction. On such basis, the Wife asks for the full inclusion of the value of the SW Property or alternatively that, “one-fifth of its value, representing the 9th floor and roof top (i.e. HK$3,347,282.40) should be regarded as matrimonial property available for sharing”. The Husband on the other hand contends that the SW Property should be excluded completely as a pre-marital asset. 183.My views are as follows:
184.In summary, only the FMH, the 1/F and 2/F Shops, and the 9th floor and rooftop of the SW Property are matrimonial assets. G3. Allegations of Conduct against the Husband 185.The starting point is LKW v DD, in which Ribeiro PJ held that:
186.In CHN v CCY [2023] HKFC 48, HH Judge E. Liu, having reviewed the authorities on point, stated that:
187.Also instructive is LCC v LTLA [2024] 2 HKLRD 1177, as already cited hereinabove. 188.Bearing the relevant legal principles in mind, I now consider the Wife’s allegations of conduct against the Husband. 189.First, the Wife says that the Husband’s conduct has led to her loss of rental income in the amount of RMB¥4,300 per month from June 2024 onwards. It is alleged that due to the Husband’s refusal to recognise her beneficial interest in the 1/F and 2/F Shops and his report of the loss of documents relating to the Shops, the Wife has been unable to let out part of the 1/F and 2/F Shops, causing a financial loss to her. 190.In relation to the Wife’s contention regarding the Husband’s failure to acknowledge her as the beneficial owner of the 1/F and 2/F Shops, I have already found against the Wife hereinabove. 191.As to the loss of documents, in the Husband’s evidence, he stated that he reported the documents to have been lost after he inquired with the Wife, from whom he understood the documents to have been lost. In these circumstances, I do not find the Husband’s report to have caused any negative impact. 192.More importantly, even with a loss of RMB¥4,300 per month from June 2024, this in total comes to just HK$38,000 for the entire period up to the trial. In the context of this case, I find it far from the “obvious and gross” threshold required. 193.Second, the Wife complains that the Husband had lodged a complaint against her to her insurance agency and the Insurance Authority, resulting in her loss of income as an insurance agent since January 2025. 194.The issue of the Wife’s resignation has been dealt with hereinabove at Section F1. For the present purposes, I reiterate my finding that the Wife’s resignation was not a result of the Husband’s complaint(s) – particularly as these were deemed “unsubstantiated” by the relevant authority months before the Wife tendered her resignation. 195.The Wife further argues that the Husband’s said conduct “may constitute defamation for being false”. Whilst this Court is not determining the issue of defamation, I have reservations as to whether there is sufficient publication of such “false complaints”. This is a core requirement in defamation. I have not been addressed at all on this. 196.More importantly, I do not welcome these scattershot points, throwing mud to see what sticks. 197.In any event, given the conclusion I have reached hereinabove, I do not accept the Wife’s argument. 198.In conclusion, I do not accept any of the conduct alleged by the Wife to meet the requisite threshold. H. DECIDING THE OUTCOME 199.To summarise, I have found that:
200.Considering all the circumstances of the case, I consider that a fair division would be a split of 20:80 of the total pot in the Husband’s favour. This means the Wife will exit the marriage with HK$8,578,280.56. 201.Cross-checking the above with my determination on matrimonial and non-matrimonial assets, this figure produces a 38:62 division, based on my finding that assets subject to division come to HK$22,564,990.8. 202.Having reconsidered the entire matter holistically, I consider that this to be a fair outcome. 203.Subtracting the Wife’s own assets from the above, the balancing payment would be HK$7,586,282.34 (the “Balancing Lump Sum”). 204.In the Wife’s Open Proposal(s), she expressed that she is not opposed to a transfer of the Husband’s Hong Kong properties in satisfaction of the lump sum. However, noting that the Husband’s Hong Kong properties are utilised as his own home and/or otherwise utilised for the use of the Limited and Unlimited Companies, I do not see it appropriate to direct such transfer. 205.Given the composition of the Husband’s side of the financial portfolio, particularly that most of his assets are illiquid, the Husband will evidently need time to liquidate his assets to come up with the payment. 206.In the Husband’s latest Open Proposal and insofar as the cash component is concerned, he proposed a payment of HK$5 million in a period of three years. He has not explained why three years is required. 207.I consider it fair, however, for the Balancing Lump Sum to be paid by instalments over a period of time. The precise structure and timeframe will be spelt out below. I. COSTS 209.I will not recite the Parties’ respective Open Proposals in detail. 210.Suffice it to say, neither Party was wholly successful, and neither could be said to be a victor in these Proceedings. Given my findings above, in particular on the Wife’s income and the allegations made against the Husband, I also consider that it was fair for the Husband to proceed to trial. 211.Arguably, in terms of quantum, the Wife has matched her 2nd Open Proposal. However, as I have mentioned above, part of the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal was for the Husband to pay her costs of this suit, the amount of which was not set out. 212.Further, by the Wife’s 2nd Open Proposal, she asks for payment of HK$7.5 million within six months’ time. Given the Husband’s portfolio, this would require the Husband to empty his bank accounts, in addition to successfully selling perhaps more than one landed property. This, I consider, is unrealistic and unfair. 213.I also do not find it fair that the ancillary relief award should be further adjusted by way of a costs order. 214.Having considered all the circumstances of the case, I make an order nisi to be made absolute in 14 days from the date of the order hereof that there be no order as to costs of and occasioned by the ancillary relief proceedings, including all costs reserved. 215.For the avoidance of doubt, outstanding but unpaid cost orders do stand. J. ORDER 216.I make the following order:
217.I thank Counsel for their assistance.
Representation: Mr Cyrus Lau, Barrister-at-law, instructed by Messrs Bobby Tse & Co., Solicitors for the Petitioner Ms Phyllis Lee, Barrister-at-law, instructed by Messrs Yip, Tse & Tang, Solicitors for the Respondent | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||