謝 對 苗及另一人

On 31 July 2026, Deputy District Judge So Ka-yin handed down judgment in FCMC 1360/2020 ([2026] HKFC 139), an ancillary relief application arising from a 2014 marriage. Mr Lau Pak-wai of Messrs Woo Kwan Lee & Lo acted for the successful wife.

The wife and husband married in May 2014, with their son born two days later. The son was later diagnosed with mild intellectual disability and spastic diplegia cerebral palsy, and attends a special school. The wife, a full-time carer, has been on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) since 2019. The husband, 62 at trial, works part-time security in Hong Kong and divides his time between Hong Kong and the mainland, where he cares for his 90-year-old mother. A former wife was joined as second respondent in respect of a jointly held Hong Kong property; that dispute was settled for HK$150,000 in 2024.

The wife sought a lump sum of RMB 2,272,500 (half of the husband's alleged assets) plus half the value of his companies, monthly spousal maintenance of HK$1,000, child maintenance of HK$4,000, and a lump sum of HK$28,000 for the son's past medical and activity expenses with future costs on a reimbursement basis. The husband agreed to continue paying child maintenance but disputed the amount and denied capacity to pay any lump sum.

The court applied the five-step framework from LKW v DD (2010) 13 HKCFAR 537. It held that:

(1) The 403-room property in Zhanjiang (valued at RMB 495,000) was a family asset, but should not be sold or its value divided, given the husband's housing need and his mother's residence there (§§47-48, 89).

(2) The Shenzhen property was, on the balance of probabilities, sold many years ago and should not be included in the family assets (§§51-52).

(3) The husband's companies, mostly dissolved or non-operating, held no distributable value; the court declined to include them (§§57-58).

(4) The Toyota vehicle, sold to the husband's brother-in-law, need not be added back to the family assets (§§61).

(5) The husband had failed in his duty of full and frank disclosure under LKW v DD, but the court drew only a proportionate adverse inference: that he retained earning capacity sufficient to meet his own needs and any ordered payments (§§69-71).

The court ordered the husband to pay HK$3,000 per month child maintenance (up from the interim HK$2,000), and a lump sum of HK$28,000 for the son's past expenses, payable through the Legal Aid Department to satisfy its first charge. All capital, property adjustment, and spousal maintenance claims were dismissed. No order as to costs was made.

Why it matters

Where a non-disclosing spouse's evidence is rejected but no hidden asset is proven, the proportionate inference may simply be that he retains earning capacity, not that undisclosed assets exist. The court will not order sale of the family home where doing so would displace the husband's elderly dependants, even where the asset is the only meaningful pool.