← Case Digest

M-d, Mp v. M, Mga

CACV 881/2025 · [2026] HKCA 1474 · Court of Appeal · 2026-08-21 · published 25 August 2026

Family

On 21 August 2026, the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) determined the wife's summons for leave to adduce further evidence in her appeal from a Family Court ancillary relief judgment. Leave was granted in respect of most of the documents sought, with only the joint correspondence and counsel's note refused. Mr Bernard Man SC, Mr James Wood and Mr Alvin Cheung, instructed by Hugill & Ip, acted for the petitioner/appellant wife.

The dispute arose from ancillary relief proceedings between M-D, MP (the wife) and M, MGA (the husband). The trial took place in July 2022 over ten days, with judgment reserved. By the time judgment was handed down on 23 August 2024, over two years had elapsed. The judge valued the matrimonial assets at 2022 figures: the Stanley Home at approximately HK$347 million and the GS Portfolios at approximately HK$341 million (§7). The wife sought to re-open the trial, supported by her 13th affidavit exhibiting updated valuations showing the Stanley Home had declined by approximately HK$100 million and the GS Portfolios had increased by approximately HK$155.7 million (§6). The judge dismissed that application on 9 September 2024.

The wife appealed on two grounds: error in valuation date given the substantial delay, and error in declining to share the GS Portfolios on the Wells principle. Leave to appeal was granted on 26 September 2025. The present summons sought leave to adduce four categories of documents relating only to Ground 1.

Applying Order 59, rule 10(2) of the Rules of the High Court, the court noted that since all the evidence related to matters after the trial, the Ladd v Marshall conditions did not apply. The court exercised its wide discretion sparingly, having regard to finality, the extent to which the evidence may affect the outcome, the time element, the parties' conduct, and whether the evidence substantially affects a basic assumption made at trial (§18).

The court declined leave for the Joint Letters, finding them part of the lower court's record that could be referred to without leave (§21). It also declined leave for counsel's note dated 6 September 2024, treating it as legal submissions rather than evidence of fact (§§23-24).

Leave was granted for §§16-18 of the 13th affidavit (the Disclosure Request Letters) and exhibit 13-1 (§28), and for §§34-40 with exhibits 13-5 and 13-6 (relating to luxury real estate price movements and the GS Portfolios' increase) (§§29-30). Leave was also granted for the RHL valuation report dated 4 September 2024, which the court found sufficiently proximate to the judgment date to be materially probative (§31).

The court rejected the husband's argument that admission would require revaluation of all significant assets, holding that this was a matter for the appeal rather than a reason to refuse leave (§33). It also rejected the contention that the Stanley Home valuation was irrelevant because the wife intended to remain there until 2028 (§34), and the assertion that the GS Portfolios evidence was moot because the husband claimed to have sold the shares, noting the absence of supporting documents and inconsistency with his earlier conduct (§35).

The court made orders granting leave to adduce the specified documents, with consequential directions for the husband to file evidence in response and the wife to file evidence in reply (§36). Costs were ordered nisi against the husband, assessed at $562,670. The court declined to award indemnity costs and found the engagement of three counsel unjustified (§37).

Why It Matters

Practitioners handling delayed ancillary relief judgments should anticipate that post-trial valuation evidence may be admitted on appeal where it substantially affects the basic assumption of broad financial equality. The proximity of the new evidence to the judgment date and the absence of inequitable conduct by the party seeking to adduce it will weigh heavily. The decision also confirms that documents forming part of the lower court record and counsel's submissions do not require leave to adduce on appeal.

Read the full judgment →

AI-assisted summary, human-reviewed — read the full judgment for the authoritative text.