Read the full judgment text of CACV 000162/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 June 2010 before Hon Cheung, Yuen and Kwan JJA.
Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance – financial provision – conduct – Consent Order – equal sharing – gross and obvious – ancillary relief – Court of Appeal – Appeal from Deputy Judge on ancillary relief regarding distribution of matrimonial assets. Parties married in November 2001 and divorced in May 2006. Husband was a doctor and Wife a director of a family business. They had no children and held various matrimonial assets including properties such as Bowen and Hoi Tan. A Consent Order dated 27 April 2007 required the sale of certain properties within six months at minimum prices. The Deputy Judge found the Husband's refusal to sell after the time limit expired was conduct inequitable to disregard and awarded the Wife additional financial provision. The main issue on appeal was whether the judge was right to take into account the Husband's conduct in relation to a Consent Order when considering distribution of the matrimonial assets. The court held that under the MPPO, conduct must be 'gross and obvious' to justify departure from equal sharing. The 'inequitable to disregard' test from English law was not directly applicable. The court also held that the Consent Order time limit for selling properties had lapsed on 27 October 2007. There was no evidence of an offer within that period. An obligation to sell after expiry could not be lightly implied. The offer for Bowen came in early 2008, after the 6-month period expired. The appeal was allowed. Orders amended. Payment reduced from $2.7m to $1.2m. Words '$0.4million or whichever is higher' deleted. Wife to pay costs of appeal to Husband. Certificate for two counsel.
Legal issues: Test for conduct in financial provision · Interpretation of Consent Order time limit
Outcome: Appeal allowed. Orders amended.
Cited by 18 cases · Cites 1 case