Read the full judgment text of CACV 290/2011 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 5 December 2012 before Hon Cheung JA, Yuen JA and Chu JA.
Civil appeal – ancillary relief – asset division – equal division principle – litigation misconduct – health needs – departure from equal division – 60/40 ratio – costs order nisi – LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR582 – section 7 – Matrimonial Causes Act 1973, UK s.25(2)(g) – M v M (Financial Provision: Party Incurring Excessive Costs) [1995] 3 FCR 321 – Wachtel v Wachtel – Tavoulareas v Tavoulareas [1998] 2 FLR 418 – Young v Young [1998] 2 FLR 1131 – Jackson’s Matrimonial Finance (9th Edition) – O.59 r.2A(7) – Petitioner LSY – Respondent HTF – Marriage 1975 – Divorce 2009 – Total assets HK$20,044,305.22 – Judge Own 70/30 ratio – Appeal allowed – Ratio adjusted to 60/40 – Parties bear own costs – Petitioner costs taxed under Legal Aid Regulations – Litigation misconduct does not justify departure unless asset depreciation – Health needs justify departure – Petitioner heart disease and depression – Respondent delay in proceedings – Full disclosure of assets – Jade business not valued – Court of Appeal – Hon Cheung JA, Yuen JA and Chu JA – 5 December 2012 – CACV 290/2011 – Civil Appeal No. 290 of 2011 – On appeal from FCMCNO. 2978 of 2005 – Deputy District Judge G. Own – Deputy District Judge S. Lo – Kwan JA – Judge Kot – Mr Adrian Leung – Mr Jason Wong – Edward C.T. Wong & Co. – Au, Thong & Tsang – Legal Aid Department
Legal issues: Litigation misconduct as ground for departure from equal division · Health needs as ground for departure from equal division
Outcome: Appeal allowed. Ratio of distribution adjusted from 70/30 to 60/40.
Cites 1 case