Read the full judgment text of FCMC 15783/2011 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment before Deputy District Judge I. Wong.
Matrimonial proceedings – Ancillary relief – Financial provision – Beneficial ownership – Resulting trust – Presumption of advancement – Non-matrimonial assets – Sharing principle – Costs – Perjury – District Court. The petitioner husband (H) and respondent wife (W) were married in 2001 and separated in 2009. H petitioned for divorce on the ground of two years separation. The trial concerned ancillary relief including division of assets. H claimed he was a nominee for his Father regarding business assets (YL and KML) and properties (Disputed Properties), while W claimed H was the beneficial owner. The Father joined as a second respondent asserting beneficial ownership via resulting trust. The court found H and Father's evidence inconsistent and unbelievable, particularly regarding H's immigration application as an entrepreneur and his financial disclosures. The court held H was the beneficial owner of the business and properties. The court assessed the parties' financial resources, finding H's assets valued at over $30 million and W's at approximately $2.2 million. The court applied the sharing principle, noting that the bulk of H's assets were unilateral (non-matrimonial) as they were acquired prior to marriage or through his business involvement. However, the court found good reasons to depart from equal division, awarding W 20% of the unilateral assets plus an equal share of the matrimonial assets. The court also addressed the whereabouts of proceeds from the sale of the matrimonial home and a Shenzhen property, requiring W to account for unexplained balances. Costs were awarded against H and the Father due to the unmeritorious nature of the resulting trust claim which prolonged the trial. The court made a declaration under section 18 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance regarding the child's welfare. Finally, the court referred evidence of perjury by H to the Department of Justice for investigation. The final order was for H to pay W a lump sum of $5,000,000 within three months. The court emphasized that H's standard of living and business involvement contradicted his claim of being a waged labourer. The properties included Shop 10, Shop 32, Workshop no. 9, and Factory B. The business entities were YL and KML. The court rejected the Father's claim that he was the mastermind behind the sons' backs. The court found the Father's evidence on the Chelsea Apartment purchase also unbelievable. The court considered W's financial needs and her ability to find work in Shenzhen. The court determined that $5,000,000 was sufficient for W to maintain a standard of living commensurate with the marriage. The court noted H could raise the sum by mortgaging the Disputed Properties. The court ordered H and the Father to pay W's costs of the ancillary relief proceedings. W was required to account for $140,000 from the matrimonial home sale and $200,000 from the Shenzhen property sale. The court found W's evidence on expenses inflated and dishonest. The court held that the marriage was a 10-year relationship including cohabitation. The court found both parties had equal contribution to the family. The court rejected H's argument for deduction of son's expenses from the lump sum. The court ordered the Petitioner to pay the 1st Respondent a lump sum of $5,000,000 within 3 months of the issuance of decree absolute.
Legal issues: Ownership of Business and Properties · Proceeds of Matrimonial Home · Proceeds of 3rd Shenzhen Property · Division of Assets · Costs
Outcome: Ancillary relief granted; lump sum ordered; costs awarded; declaration made; referral for perjury investigation.
Cited by 2 cases · Cites 1 case