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

K v K

Judgment Cited authorities 5 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date13 October 2008
Subject MatterMatrimonial Causes
Judgement NumberFCMC6100/2006
CourtFamily Court (Hong Kong)
FCMC006100A/2006 K v. K

FCMC No. 6100/2006

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

MATRIMONIAL CAUSES NO. 6100 OF 2006

_______________

BETWEEN

K Petitioner
and
K Respondent

_______________

Coram: Deputy District Judge K.W. Wong in Chambers (not open to public)

Date of Hearing: 11th April, 18th July & 27th August 2008

Date of Handing Down of Written Decision: 13th October 2008

________________

DECISION

________________

1. This is the discovery application of the Respondent wife (“Wife”) against the Petitioner husband (“Husband”) by summons dated 25th January 2008.

2. By this summons, the Wife asks the Husband to make extensive discovery relating to (1) transfer of 2 landed properties, (2) credit cards statements, (3) shareholding of 14 companies, mostly overseas and land holding, and valuations of these companies, and (4) providing answers to her questionnaire which the Husband is accused of not having fully answered. The Wife also asks that the discovery of documents should generally be dated back from 2002 instead of the usual two years from the date of the Husband’s petition issued in 2006. Save and except discovery of credit cards statements two years prior to petition and valuation of the matrimonial home as well as a company called K & K Limited, the Husband opposes the application.

The Application

3. It is in fact the third contested application before me in these proceedings. I have previously dealt with the Wife’s maintenance pending suit (“MPS”) application and her application for further costs provisions until FDR. As I have already set out the brief background of the marriage in my previous decisions I only set out those parts which are relevant to this application below.

4. The parties married on the 24th August 1983 in Hong Kong. On 23rd May 2006, the Husband issued a Petition based on two-year separation since about 10th April 2004. This marriage was brought to an end when a decree nisi of divorce was granted on 26th February 2007. The marriage lasted for about 23 years. At any rate, it can be regarded as a long marriage.

5. The Wife filed a Form A on 13th July 2006 applying for financial provisions for herself and children of the family in the pending divorce suit. Her applications include, inter alia, periodical payments, lump sum payments and transfer of properties. Form Es were exchanged in or about September 2006. The parties have already issued questionnaires for further and better particulars of the information disclosed in the Form E.

6. At issue is the Wife’s questionnaire and request for further and better particulars dated 5th January 2007 (“the said Questionnaire”) in respect of the Husband’s Form E. The Wife accused the Husband of failing or refusing to make full and frank disclosure. The Wife’s contention is that all documents relating to the Husband’s income, earning capacity, properties, business, financial resources which the Husband has had, or is likely to have, as well as documents evidencing the family’s lifestyle and living standard prior to the breakdown of the marriage should be disclosed so as to assist the Court exercising its discretion in making financial provisions according to section 7 of Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance, Cap 192 (“MPPO”).

7. Miss Remedios, counsel for the Wife submitted that given the extravagant life-style enjoyed by the family throughout the marriage and the values of the properties involved, this is a “Big Money” case. Miss Anita Yip, counsel for the Husband, submitted that the Husband is not “mega-rich” as alleged. She submitted that being the son of a very rich father, it does not mean the Husband himself is rich. However, whatever labels counsel used here there is in fact no dispute the Husband is the only son of a very wealthy traditional Chinese family. He is also a very successful businessman looking after the family’s business comprising substantial landed properties, including office blocks, shopping centres and residential properties in Hong Kong, Canada and USA held through a network of local and overseas companies. There is no dispute that these properties worth hundreds of millions dollars. The question is whether the Husband has beneficial interest in these properties or whether they are financial resources which the Husband can look upon. The Wife said the Husband had ever, when the marriage was intact, told her that he had interest in his family business. It is undisputed evidence that the Husband is either a director or key officer of these companies. The Wife therefore said the Husband must have beneficial interest in all these family companies and landed properties. The Husband denies. His case is that he is only assisting his father to look after the latter’s business empire. His father is the “king” of thisempire and everything belongs to his father. He is only paid salaries for his service but has no beneficial interest in the business and properties. Everything beyond his salary is entirely a matter for his father.

Request for Joint Valuations of Properties

8. At issues are several specific properties which the Wife would like joint valuations be made. For ease of reference they are listed below:

i) Shiu Fai Terrace, Hong Kong (“Matrimonial Home”);

ii) K.Y. Mansion, Hong Kong (“KY Mansion”);

iii) Quail Meadow (“Quail Meadow”);

iv) Don Mills, Canada (“Don Mills”); and

v) Tak Ku Ling Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong (“TKL”).

Matrimonial Home

9. The Husband’s position is this: save and except that of the Matrimonial Home which gives an indication of the standard of living of the family, he considers it “utterly improper and unprincipled”, to use the words of Miss Yip in her written submission, to compel him to do a joint valuation and bear half of the costs. All the above properties belong to third parties and the Husband has no beneficial interest in them. However, the Husband has no objection to the Wife doing her own valuations of these properties (except the Matrimonial Home).

KY Mansion

10. It is the Wife’s case that the Husband and the Husband’s father Mr. K had asked her to sign a pre-nuptial agreement, even before the marriage. She refused. However, on 31st August 1983, some 8 days after their marriage she signed a “Quitclaim” in respect of Don Mills upon request of the Husband. She alleged her signing of the document was without legal advice. As she refused to sign any pre-nuptial agreement, the Wife said that the Husband and the paternal family have sought to ring-fence the Husband’s legal or beneficial interest from the start of their marriage. The Wife said that despite the fact that the Husband was the registered owner of KY Mansion and in fact another unit of the same KY Mansion at the time of their marriage, the Husband chose to live in the Matrimonial Home which is in fact owned by one BC Company Limited(“BC”) since their marriage. Apparently, the Husband has no shareholding and is only one of the directors of BC.

11. In January 2002, KY Mansion was sold by the Husband to BC at a consideration of $5 million. The Wife’s case is that this is not a genuine transaction and is an attempt to put assets beyond her reach in the divorce.

12. The Husband considered this irrelevant as the transaction was at market price. Mr. K deposed to that the Matrimonial Home is provided to the Husband’s family free so that they could rent out theirs for a good income. Furthermore, his parents could not tolerate the spotting of his rooms by dogs which the Wife had failed to properly toilet-train.

Don Mills and Quail Meadow

13. The Wife also alleged Don Mills and Quail Meadow are the family’s secondary homes when the family is overseas.

14. For Don Mills, she said the family lived there while they were on holiday in Canada. When the two children were studying in Canada for about two years, the family also stayed there.

15. The same applied to Quail Meadow. She said whenever the family was in the States they lived there. Even her US driving licence was imprinted with the address of Quail Meadow. Furthermore, the Husband has once been the registered owner of Quail Meadow.Accordingly these properties are their family’s homes overseas and their valuations should be available to the Court.

16. The gist of the submission made on behalf of the Husband is that Don Mills is owned as an investment by one of the family’s companies called K & K Limited(“K & K”). It has never been intended as the family’s Canadian home. It is now being put up for sale. In any event the Husband is a 20% shareholder and a director of K & K. The company has agreed to provide the valuation of this company. The value of Don Mills will invariably be reflected in such valuation. It is therefore not necessary to provide a separate valuation for Don Mills.

17. As for Quail Meadow, the Husband’s case was that it was purchased by the father for the Husband and his little sister J in 1978 for US$1.3 million. It was registered in his sole name because J was then still a child aged about 9. Therefore since purchase he was holding half interest of Quail Meadow on trust for J. In 1984, his father made arrangement for his interest be transferred to J at a consideration US$650,000. Thereafter he held Quail Meadow solely on trust for J. Quail Meadow was later transferred back in 1996 to J who subsequently in 1998 put the property in her own trust of which the Husband said he has no interest. There is no suggestion at all anything untoward the marriage taking place at that time. For the 1984 transaction, the Husband exhibited a cheque dated 15th October 1984 of US$450,000 drawn by J to him and a promissory note of US$200,000 issued by his father. The Wife refused to accept on grounds, inter alia, that J was only a teenager (aged about 15) when her cheque was...

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