Lo Leung Ling Kwan v. Lo Kwok Fai

HCMC000029A/1975

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF HONG KONG

DIVORCE JURISDICTION

ACTION NO. 29 OF 1975

-----------------

-----------------

Coram: Mr. Registrar Stapp in Chambers.

Date of Judgment: September 1977

Mr. D.G. Sparrow, instructed by Messrs. P.H. Sin & Co. for Petitioner.

Mr. J.H.N. Bleach, instructed by Messrs. Rowdget W. Young & Co. for Respondent.

----------------------------------

ANCILLARY RELIEF

----------------------------------

1. The petitioner has applied for orders for periodical payments and a lump sum payment under S.4 of Cap. 192 following a decree of divorce.

2. The parties were married on 9th March, 1955, and a decree nisi was granted to the petitioner on 21st May, 1976.

3. There are two sons of the marriage, namely:

4. Kin Yip is now living in the United States and is no longer dependent on his parents. Kin-wing is living with and being supported by the respondent.

5. When they were first married, both parties went to work, each earning approximately $400 per month, and their rent was $100 per month. The petitioner continued working after the birth of the two sons, and still is.

6. I find that the petitioner has made full and frank disclosure of her means to the Court. She is working as a clerk with the Hong Kong Electric Co. Ltd., receiving a monthly salary of $1,668. She owns a flat at No.1B Babington Path, Hong Kong, which is valued at $200,000. She owns shares worth approximately $100,000 which return an income of approximately $1,000 per year. She also owns gold bars and jewellery worth approximately $22,000. She holds 3 bank accounts containing, in all, approximately $16,000.

7. Her total monthly income from her salary and share income are therefore approximately $1,750 per month, whilst her monthly expenses average $1,800 per month. The respondent claims that $700 per month spent for food is excessive, whilst the petitioner claims that it is necessary to east often at restaurants in Central District, where her office is located.

8. The respondent claims that his present assets are valued as follows:-

9. The flat is under mortgage and the car is subject to a loan.

10. The respondent claims to have lost money consistently in his business of Level Measvrens & Weighes Co. every year since its commencement in 1965, and to have continued running the business with as many as eleven employees, because he likes to occupy himself. Within the space of about 5 years from 1968, however, he invested over $180,000 in real estate, shares, bank savings and a motor car. The petitioner claims that the money for those investments was derived from the respondent's successful and lucrative business; whilst the respondent, on the other hand, maintains that it came from the proceeds of gold bars and valuables left to him by his parents in the 1940's.

11. The respondent at first stated on affirmation that he inherited some $15,000 worth of gold bars from his mother who died in Hong Kong in 1944, and that after his father died in China in the late 1940's he inherited gold bars and valuables worth about $50,000, at that time. When giving evidence before me in Chambers, however, his evidence was that he had inherited $50,000 worth of gold and valuables from his mother and $65,000 worth from his father. The difference in totals was therefore $50,000. Mr. Sparrow for the petitioner rightly pointed out that either sum would have been a fortune at that time.

12. The respondent does not appear to be a miser at heart. For example, he drives a B.M.W. car, dines out regularly, buys his son Kin Wing $50 shirts, and gives him generous pocket money; and at one stage was, on his own evidence, himself paying fees at the rate of almost $10,000 per year, to keep his son Kin Yip at the fashionable International School, South Bay. The same man stated that when he got married in 1955 at the age of 31, he possessed a what was then a veritable fortune, but those to start married life with his bride in a room, at a rental of about $100 per month, and only decided to start spending his fortune in 1968. I found the evidence of the respondent manifestly inconsistent and unreliable. As one example, in an affirmation dated 17th July, 1975, he stated his monthly family expenditure to be $1,048 and in an affirmation dated 21st July, 1976 he gave such figure as $4,004. Even if one omits the fees for the International School from the latter figure, one is still left with a threefold increase in one year. It is clear to me that the respondent is prepared to conjure up facts and figures to suit himself, in order to falsify his financial position. I also reject the unconvincing evidence of the dependent step-mother Madam Lo Tang Kwai-lin, as to the alleged family fortune.

13. On the other hand, I accept the evidence of the petitioner, to the effect that the respondent had not mentioned to her anything about the inheritance from his father and mother, and that when they were married in 1955, there were only 6 tables of guests at the wedding feast, and that the respondent had to borrow from his brother to pay for it. I find that the above sum of $180,000 which the respondent invested over a five year period commencing in 1968, was derived from the profits of his business. I further find that the respondent is still running a successful business which yields handsome, albeit undisclosed profits, and that he still has substantial undisclosed assets.

14. In Rayden on Divorce 12th edition at pp. 715 & 716 it is stated:-

"Both husband and wife must disclose all their resources to the court. Whether that disclosure is by affidavit of facts, by affidavit of documents or by evidence on oath, the obligation is to be full, frank and clear in that disclosure: any shortcomings from this standard can and normally will be visited by the Court drawing inferences against the party in default on matters the subject of the shortcomings, in so far as such inferences can properly be drawn."

15. I have considered all the matters to which the court is to have regard under S.7 of Cap. 192. Inter alia, the marriage lasted twenty years and the petitioner made helpful contributions. Doing the best I can on the somewhat limited evidence before me, I find that the respondent has a monthly income in excess of seven thousand dollars, and I order him to make monthly payments of $1,200 to the petitioner, with effect from 1st August, 1977. Fortunately the petitioner also has considerable assets herself, and in all the circumstances I order the respondent to pay her a lump sum of $20,000, to help defray the costs involved in her having to move, renovate and furnish a home. There will be a further order that the respondent pay the petitioner's costs of this application, with a certificate for counsel.

16. Dated this the day of September, 1977.

Representation:

Mr. Registrar Stapp in Chambers.

Mr. D.G. Sparrow, instructed by Messrs. P.H. Sin & Co. for Petitioner.

Mr. J.H.N. Bleach, instructed by Messrs. Rowdget W. Young & Co. for Respondent.