Lsp v. Cht

On 27 August 2026, the Family Court handed down judgment in LSP v CHT [2026] HKFC 153, allowing the husband's appeal in part against Master Lung's decision dismissing both parties' applications for interim maintenance for their four-year-old daughter D. The husband (H), the petitioner, acted in person; the wife (W), the respondent, also appeared in person.

This is a short, acrimonious marriage. H and W married in March 2020; D was born in June 2022. H filed for divorce in March 2023 on the ground of W's unreasonable behaviour, and decree nisi still has not been issued more than three years later. Care and control of D rests with H, who lives with her and his mother in a leased Fanling flat; W has access that Deputy Judge F Li expanded in May 2026. Two properties are at issue: a Tai Po flat in H's sole name and a Shatin flat in W's sole name. Both parties are civil servants with stable incomes.

The Master below found that neither party had complied with the duty of full and frank disclosure, that both had exaggerated expenses, and that H had concealed his housing allowance. She dismissed both applications. W did not appeal; H did.

The Judge's holdings

H's application to adduce further evidence was dismissed. The Ladd v Marshall conditions were not met (§37), and the tenancy agreement was inadmissible as it was unstamped (§34), in breach of s 15 of the Stamp Duty Ordinance (Cap 117).

On substance, the court reaffirmed that the duty of full and frank disclosure is absolute and continuing (§64). Both parties had engaged in selective disclosure, concealment, and what the court found to be fabricated figures (§66).

H's monthly disposable income was assessed at $88,550, comprising net salary plus housing allowance plus notional rental income of $16,000 from the Tai Po Flat, which the court found H had deliberately left vacant. His expenses were assessed at $74,000, leaving a monthly surplus of $14,550. W's disposable income was assessed at $65,000 (salary plus gratuity) with expenses of $52,800, leaving a surplus of $12,200. D's reasonable needs were put at $11,300 per month (§67).

Applying the reasonableness and fairness principles from HJFG v KCY [2012] 1 HKLRD 95, the court departed from the Master. Both parties were financially capable and equally responsible for D's maintenance, even at the interim stage (§68). W was ordered to pay $2,100 per month, an equalization payment plus a $500 uplift for months of non-contribution (§69). Costs followed the event, with W paying half of the costs below and the costs of the appeal (§71).

What this means in practice: where both parents are in stable employment and capable of contribution, the Family Court will not leave the child's needs to be met by the primary carer alone, even at the interim stage. Practitioners advising on interim maintenance should expect robust adverse inferences against parties who fail to disclose income or assets and who cannot explain how they fund a claimed deficit. A vacant rental property will attract a notional income figure regardless of the owner's assertion that no tenants can be found.