Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

K v C

Judgment Cited authorities 17 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date14 July 2008
Year2008
Judgement NumberFCMC5508/2005
Subject MatterMatrimonial Causes
CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
FCMC005508A/2005 K v. C

FCMC 5508 OF 2005

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES

SUIT NO. 5508 OF 2005

----------------------

BETWEEN
K Petitioner
and
C Respondent

----------------------

Before : HH Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers.

Date of Hearing : 12-15 November 2007, 5-9, 13-14 May, 26 June 2008.

Date of Judgment : 14 July 2008.

----------------------

J U D G M E N T

----------------------

1. This is the Petitioner Wife’s application for ancillary relief against the Respondent Husband upon the dissolution of what appears to be a short childless marriage which lasted less than 3 years as far as post-marital cohabitation as husband and wife is concerned. It was however a wealthy marriage and hence raises important issues over division of capital assets where the marriage was short-lived but with a pre-marital relationship of some length, as well as the concept of compensation as the Wife is said to be severely handicapped so far as her own earning capacity is concerned when she allegedly gave up the prospect of becoming a classical concert pianist in anticipation of her marriage to the Husband, who is said to have given her, which is denied by him, a legitimate expectation that she would be able to live at a very high standard in terms of accommodation and spendable income.

2. The Wife was born and raised in Malaysia and is now aged 43. She presently lives in a house owned by her parents in Kuala Lumpur and works as a part-time lecturer in a school of music there, while the Husband was born in Hong Kong and is now a 41 year old director of various companies and family business founded by his father Mr C, a well-known entrepreneur and magnate in property-development, banking and finance, hotels construction and management, as well as entertainment business in Hong Kong and South East Asia.

3. The battle lines are drawn in the parties’ respective open proposal made shortly before the start of the final hearing, in which the Wife in hers of 31st October 2007 computed her living expenses at $124,000 to $150,000 per month for her next 46 years or so for which she seeks a lump sum between $25.6 million and $31 million on the Duxbury calculation, plus additional funds to purchase a detached house in Malaysia at between $6.4 million to $11.85 million for her accommodation, $3 million for its decoration and furnishing, and about $1 million for a BMW car. The total sum required to meet her future needs therefore amounts to between $36 million and $47 million.

4. She put forward this proposal on the basis that the standard of living during their lengthy relationship and marriage was substantial and significant without the need or the application of a budget, as by virtue of the Husband’s wealth their lifestyle was luxurious, and that she does not accept that he has made full and frank disclosure of his means which he updated at only $11.87 million in his latest Financial Statement (Form E) on 15th October 2007, whereas his 1st Form E filed on 17th August 2005 disclosed net assets of $38 million, which then increased to $58 million in September 2006, and at a hearing of her application for maintenance pending suit on 22nd January 2007 further increased to $73 million. On the advice of her accountant, she believes his net assets are now between $83 million and $95 million excluding his residence or his possible inheritance of his family wealth which she puts at $1.78 billion, and hence on the basis of the lengthy relationship which “locked in” with their marriage, her future needs as calculated above, and other relevant matters including compensation for her lost career and the concept of sharing, she puts her case at 50% of the total assets of $95 million which equates to a lump sum of $47.5 million for her, or alternatively 50% of $83 million which is $41.5 million. .

5. The Husband’s open proposal dated 9th November 2007, on the other hand, is to transfer his interest in a 1,700 sq. ft. town house in Federal Hill, Kuala Lumpur (“the Federal Hill property”) then worth about $2.39 million (Malaysia Ringgits $1 million) to the Wife for her use or benefits, and to pay her a lump sum of $4 million, hence a total package of $6.3 million, which together with a shares portfolio worth about $1.5 million that he has allowed her to retain in Malaysia, he says should fully satisfy her needs and requirements for a very comfortable life in Malaysia, and at the same time sufficiently reflect the peculiar features of this short childless marriage lasting only 31 months which should be distinguished from a long, unsettling, unstable and demoralizing boy-friend-girl-friend relationship between the parties prior to the registration of their marriage. At the hearing he updated the net total value of his assets at just slightly over $12 million after taking into proper account of his various debts and liabilities including those owed to his father and one of his brothers, and hence he says his offer would have given the Wife more than 50% of their total assets.

6. Not surprisingly, the gulf which reflects a difference of over $40 million between the parties’ respective proposal means that their only common ground is that both want to have a clean break over the financial claims, and so the hearing took place over 12 days between November 2007 and June 2008 during which both parties, who were represented by counsel namely Mr Robin Egerton for the Wife and Ms Anita Yip for the Husband, gave extensive oral evidence, as did their witnesses including professionals such as accountants.

The Background

7. The parties first met in 1985 in London, and shortly thereafter formed a relationship when the Husband was then doing A-Level at Davies’ College and the Wife in her first year of a degree course in music at King’s College. Soon she moved in to stay with him and his 2 adopted dogs in his residence in Sydenham Hill in south east London, a property owned by his family, during which the Husband was mainly responsible for their household expenses and would also pay for everything whenever they went out together, while the Wife would pay for the grocery when she did the shopping herself as well as some of the utility bills, the fact is that both were then financially dependent on their own family. They would also frequently travel together and had met each other’s parents and family members over the period.

8. In September 1988 the Husband went on to study in Cambridge University, while the Wife, having graduated from King’s College in the same year, rather than pursuing the master degree in music either in Oxford, Paris or New York, instead stayed in London and worked as a part-time music teacher and studied piano performance privately, for which she claims as one of the main reasons that she was needed to stay in the Sydenham Hill residence to look after the property and the dogs. During this period the parties would continue to meet each other when the Husband came down to London during weekends or holidays, or at times when she visited him in Cambridge.

9. Upon his graduation in the summer of 1991, the Husband left London for Singapore to join his family business there, while the Wife also left several months later to return to Malaysia with the Husband’s dogs, initially staying at her parents’ home in Ipoh, and subsequently moved to her present home in Kuala Lumpur, when she gave up her aspiration to become a concert pianist and instead worked as a part-time music teacher and to look after the 2 dogs. The parties would continue to see each other by meeting up at various places, and the Wife would accompany the Husband in many of his business trips.

10. In 1993 the Husband returned to Hong Kong for good and became involved in his family business mainly in the development of certain property project in the New Territories. He was also appointed a director and allotted shares in some of his father’s companies over the next several years during which the parties would continue to visit each other, in Malaysia where the Husband would stay at the Wife’s place, in Hong Kong where the Wife would similarly stay in the house of the Husband’s parents, and elsewhere when they travelled together during the Husband’s many business trips. At times there were talks of marriage and on 2 occasions they even booked an appointment to register their marriage in Hong Kong (1992/3) and London (1995) respectively but which for various reasons, one of which was when one of the dogs was dying of cancer, had either been put off or not materialized. It is not in dispute that there had also been many break-ups and reconciliation between the parties in particularly between 1995 and 1997 during which they would date or had had relationship, at least on the part of the Husband, with other persons. Eventually they got back together sometimes in 1997 and subsequently registered their marriage on 21st September 1997 in Las Vegas, USA but without informing their respective family until much later afterwards.

11. After the marriage the parties resided with the Husband’s parents in their 20,000 sq. ft. 4-storey mansion known as the C’s Garden in Tsuen Wan, New Territories, while the Wife never worked and, in her own words, mainly kept her mother-in-law and sisters-in-law company, dining and shopping, as well as travelling with the Husband. She was also given one of his ATM bank cards and 2 credit cards for her personal use and expenses.

12. During the next 3 years or so of the marriage the parties continued to travel together from time to time including the Husband’s business trips, and there were also talks about moving out of the C’s Garden into their own home, which were unfortunately punctuated by the many quarrels between them with the Wife accusing the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT