Read the full judgment text of on BabelCite..
1. The respondent in this action disclosed that he had a 70% share in a highly lucrative practice. Subsequently in interlocutory proceedings he mentioned that he then had a 10% share. Alarmed by what appeared to be a very large disposition which could affect her ultimate financial provision, the petitioner applied under section 17 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192) for the disposition to be set aside. Upon that application Deputy Judge Barnett on 4th April 1985 orde