Case Update – FCMC 4687/2023 – Legal Costs Provision, Financial Disclosure, and Adverse Inference in Hong Kong Family Law
The decision of His Honour Judge I Wong in M, DA & M, VD, KSH ([2026] HKFC 37) concerns the Hong Kong court’s approach to applications for legal costs provision in matrimonial proceedings, particularly in cases involving complex asset structures and high-net-worth individuals. It is a useful reminder that full and frank financial disclosure is not a technical exercise, but central to the court’s ability to do justice.
The parties were married for around twenty-five years. The Wife had largely been out of the workforce, while the Husband was a successful businessman operating through a network of private companies across multiple jurisdictions. Divorce proceedings followed, with ancillary relief still pending. The Wife sought maintenance pending suit and provision for legal costs to fund the litigation. While maintenance was agreed, the issue of legal costs proceeded to judgment.
The governing principles are well established. Legal costs provision is treated as a form of maintenance pending suit, guided by Currey v Currey (No 2) and applied in Hong Kong in HJFG v KCY. The question is whether the applicant can reasonably secure representation by other means. This includes considering the availability of assets, borrowing, or litigation funding, and whether public funding is available. Even where need is established, the court retains a broad discretion, including consideration of proportionality and the parties’ conduct.
In this case, the outcome turned on the Husband’s financial disclosure, and in particular the contrast between his first and updated Forms E. In his original disclosure, prepared with professional assistance, the Husband identified substantial worldwide assets and a net worth exceeding HK$50 million. He was also maintaining the Wife and children at a significant level, and had previously indicated an ability to make meaningful capital provision in his Petition for divorce.
By the time of the updated Form E, however, the position had shifted markedly. Company values were said to be “to be determined”, personal bank balances had reduced sharply, and corporate liabilities, including contingent liabilities supported by personal guarantees, were brought into the calculation of personal net worth. The overall presentation was of significantly reduced means.
The Court was not persuaded that this revised picture provided a clearer or more reliable account of the Husband’s true financial position. While acknowledging the complexity of his affairs, His Honour Judge I Wong expressed concern that the manner of disclosure made it difficult to understand the underlying reality. The effect was not to assist the Court, but to obscure it.
This was not simply a case of imperfect disclosure. The inconsistencies between the earlier and updated Forms E, coupled with the absence of coherent explanation, gave rise to a proper basis for adverse inference in financial remedy proceedings. Where a party has the means and opportunity to provide full and frank disclosure, but advances a presentation that is incomplete, shifting, or opaque, the Court is entitled to treat that evidence with caution. Importantly, it may infer that a clearer and more candid picture would not have assisted that party’s case.
The Court recalled the well-known caveat given by Lam J (as he then was) at [197]–[200] of L v L [2006] HKFLR 121 that financial disclosure is not a “game of hide and seek” and that a court should not hesitate to draw an adverse inference where a litigant has failed in the duty of full and frank disclosure.
His Honour Judge I Wong therefore adopted that approach in a practical way. Faced with a presentation that could not readily be tested or reconciled, the Court was prepared to rely on earlier, more reliable material and to draw adverse inferences as to the Husband’s ability to pay. The exercise was not punitive. It was necessary to ensure that the litigation could proceed on a fair footing.
This case demonstrates that the risk for litigants is real. In Hong Kong divorce and ancillary relief proceedings, where disclosure is presented in a way that obscures rather than clarifies, the Court is not bound to accept it at face value. It is entitled to stand back and draw inferences that reflect the likely reality of the undisclosed position.
Against that backdrop, and given the complexity of the proceedings, including multiple companies, cross-border assets, and likely valuation disputes, the Court concluded that an order for legal costs provision of HK$50,000 per month for eighteen months was reasonable and proportionate.
The decision is a reminder that legal costs provision is not only about need. It is also about fairness in the litigation process. In high-value Hong Kong family law cases, parties are expected to present their financial affairs in a clear, consistent, and intelligible way. Where they do not, the Court may adopt a pragmatic approach, rely on more reliable material, and draw adverse inferences to ensure that both parties are able to participate on an equal footing.
Partner | Email
Share this post