Read the full judgment text of FCMC 14731/2010 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 27 August 2014 before Deputy District Judge Yim.
Leave to appeal – District Court – Matrimonial Causes – Clean break – Periodical payments – Nominal maintenance – Discretion – Reasonable prospect of success – Interests of justice – The petitioner wife applied for leave to appeal against the trial judgment which awarded her a lump sum of HK$38 million and dismissed her claim for periodical payments in favour of a clean break. The court considered the test under District Court Ordinance Cap.336 s.63A(2) regarding reasonable prospect of success and interests of justice. The court found the original judgment was within the generous ambit of discretion and not plainly wrong. The wife's arguments on earning capacity, living standard, and needs were based on evidence already considered at trial. Leave to appeal is dismissed. Husband awarded costs. The wife sought to replace the dismissal of the claim for periodical payments with an order for nominal maintenance. The court examined grounds including the husband's earning capacity, the living standard of the parties, the needs of the wife, the needs of the children, and the appropriateness of a clean break. The court held that the husband's future earning capacity was properly assessed at an average net take home income of $156,000 plus benefits in kind. The court found no evidence to support speculation on future inheritance. The wife's estimated needs were found to be inflated. The court concluded that the wife had a significant departure from equality in the asset division and was not left without a fallback position. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard. The parties married in 1993 and separated in 2010. The wife was a Certified Chartered Accountant who ceased working when the son was two and a half years old. The husband worked a Canadian corporation before returning Hong Kong for assisting his father’s business. The couples had two children. The husband inherited a sum of $10.89 million in February 2013. The trial court awarded the wife about 74% of the bigger family pot. The wife claimed the court underestimated her expenses and standard of living. The court found the wife had inflated her estimated needs on monthly spending and accommodation by 3 times. The court noted the husband's new family and his responsibility to the elder son. The court emphasized that children's maintenance is separate from spousal maintenance. The court found the wife had a significant departure from equality in the asset division and was not left without a fallback position. The court found no reasonable prospect of success on the intended appeal and no other reason in the interests of justice for the appeal to be heard.
Legal issues: Leave to appeal application
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal dismissed.