佐敦恒豐酒店後人李德義，不滿前媳婦曾昭穎獲14.7億元贍養費，與兒子李建勤提出上訴，昨獲判得直。上訴庭認為贍養費應是4.41億元，令曾昭穎少收10億元。惟涉嫌在訴訟中偽造文件的李德義父子，未能推翻曾昭穎獲准協助警方調查，以及律政司可索取訴訟文件決定，仍一身蟻。
任職律師的曾昭穎於2008年與李建勤結束八年婚姻後，向前夫索取贍養費55億元，但李德義指兒子在日本東京的龐大資產，實際是父親所有，不屬婚姻資產，介入訴訟。上訴庭昨頒佈判詞指，日本的生意由李德義斥資展開，李德義有權以一美元購回有關股份，也嚴禁兒子擅自處理資產，加上他不想財產落入「另一男人的女兒」手上，原審法官以為李德義不會行使回購權是犯錯。
官判撇除65億日本資產
上訴庭認為，李建勤及曾昭穎只是替李德義打工，以換取非常高的生活水平，故將原審法官估值65億元的日本資產，從婚姻資產中扣除。上訴庭指，原審法官判曾昭穎可就其需要獲得5.24億元，已相當慷慨，上訴庭扣除她的8,274萬元資產後，認為贍養費應是4.41億元，再考慮她已從李德義取得2.02億元及將取回3,000萬元訟費，最終判她可獲約2.09億元。
李德義父子曾被指偽造一份2006年簽訂的可轉讓貸款協議，企圖剝奪曾昭穎贍養費，但有關爭議已在分產案前和解。上訴庭認為，曾昭穎在分產案中重提偽造指控是濫用程序，指李德義父子受到不公平對待，原審法官不應裁定二人偽造、發假誓及妨礙司法公正，故日後原審判詞公開時，有關裁決將會刪除。然而，原審法官將案轉介律政司調查，上訴庭認為並無不妥。對於律政司早前獲准索取有關文件，以及曾昭穎獲准披露有關資料協助調查，上訴庭駁回父子倆的上訴，但給二人21日期限，以提出上訴，或提出文件受法律專業特權保障而不得披露的申請。另外，上訴庭批准曾昭穎以未經刪改的原審判詞，在海外法庭執行判決。
CACV 154/2012 &
CACV 166/2012
(Heard together)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 154 AND 166 OF 2012
(ON APPEAL FROM HCMC NO. 5 OF 2008)
_______________________
BETWEEN
| TCWF | Petitioner | |
| AND | ||
| LKKS | Respondent | |
| AND | ||
| STL | 2ndIntervener | |
| OIL | 3rd Intervener |
| Before: Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Barma JJA in Court |
| Dates of Hearing: 21 to 25 October 2013 |
| Date of Judgment: 10 January 2014 |
______________________
| J U D G M E N T |
______________________
Hon Lam VP, Kwan JA and Barma JA:
... E. OUTCOME OF THE APPEALS AND CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS
380. For the reasons given above, we allow the appeal to this extent: we would set aside the award of the judge in favour of the wife and substitute it with an award in the net sum of HK$208.958 million.
This amount is arrived at by taking the wife’s needs as assessed by the judge (HK$524.5 million) and deducting from it the following amounts: HK$202.8 million (the amount already paid to the wife in partial satisfaction of the award by the judge); HK$79 million (the wife’s assets as assessed by the judge); HK$30 million (the amount of costs the wife is due to recover as assessed under section D.12); and HK$3.742 million (10% of the value of Hollywood Heights as decided under section D.13). The sum should be payable forthwith.
381. The parties have not advanced submissions before us on the question of interest. We direct that written submissions on interest shall be lodged by the wife within 14 days of the handing down of this judgment and submissions from the husband and the father shall be lodged within 14 days thereafter. Subject to other directions that may be given in the meantime, the court will determine the question of interest on paper. We draw the attention of the parties to a recent Court of Appeal judgment in PLTO v KLK & Anr, CACV 157 of 2012, 4 July 2013, which may be of relevance.
382. In respect of the challenges to the judge’s findings on forgery, perjury and conspiracy, we do not think our criticism of those findings warrant a retrial of the case. Nor do we think it appropriate to set aside the referral to the DPP by the judge. In an appeal, this court does not grant remedy by way of setting aside particular paragraph(s) in a judgment. We shall consider the question of publication and redaction below.
383. We dismiss the cross-appeal by the wife.
384. As regards costs, though we do not agree with the husband and the father in terms of an order for retrial, they are substantially successful before us. We make a costs order nisi that the wife shall pay the husband and the father 85% of the costs of the appeal and all the costs of the cross-appeal, such costs shall be taxed if not agreed. We give a certificate of two counsel in respect of the husband, and likewise for the father.
~~~~~~~~
SCMP, Friday, 10 January, 2014
The Court of Appeal yesterday slashed by two-thirds a record HK$1.4 billion divorce settlement granted to a property tycoon's ex-wife, ruling she should receive HK$411 million. The ruling followed a successful appeal by the husband and his billionaire father.
It said that Florence Tsang Chiu-wing, 39, a solicitor, needs HK$524.5 million to fund the lifestyle she enjoyed during her marriage with Samathur Li Kin-kan, 40. Li is the son of Samuel Tak Lee, the head of Prudential Enterprise, which has vast global real estate investments and owns the Prudential Hotel in Nathan Road, Jordan.
The panel of three judges ruled the lower court was wrong to have included the son's multibillion-dollar property business in Japan, which was developed with seed funds from the father, who has the right to buy back the business at US$1.
The lower court had wrongly granted Tsang HK$1.4 billion on a "sharing principle", giving her 20 per cent of the couple's total assets, which included Li's HK$7.3 billion, the judges found.
The case attracted extensive media coverage during the hearings in 2011 and gave the public a rare glimpse into the extravagance of the seriously rich. The court heard how Li lavished more than HK$100 million a year on himself and at one point had a Boeing business jet, two yachts, 28 cars and millions of dollars' worth of wine.
The couple's eight-year marriage broke down in 2008 after Tsang refused her husband's demand for an abortion, then discovered he was having an affair.
The HK$524.5 million the lower court adjudged that Tsang needed included HK$250 million for a property in Hong Kong, HK$30 million for a property in London, HK$2.5 million to buy two cars in Hong Kong and another HK$1 million for a car in London.
The court also allowed HK$5 million to buy a yacht and HK$4.6 million to enable Tsang to join clubs in Hong Kong and England.
The appeal court said that as the wife had her own assets, the ex-husband would only need to give her HK$411 million.
Deducting the HK$202.8 million that he had already paid her, Li now needed to pay her a further HK$208 million, the court said.
The appeal court also reversed a finding by the trial judge, Mr Justice John Saunders, that Li and his father had committed forgery, perjury and conspiracy. Saunders used the civil rather than the criminal standard of proof to find that it was more likely than not that the two had committed the misconduct.
They were said to have forged a loan agreement to transfer virtually all of the son's assets to the father to frustrate Tsang's claim.
But the Court of Appeal would not set aside Saunders' referral of the case to the Director of Public Prosecutions to decide whether a criminal investigation should be conducted.
"In referring the matter to the DPP, the court is not ordering him to act or expecting him to act in any particular way," the court said, adding that the referral was no different from one made by an ordinary citizen.
"Whether they were guilty of such misconduct is not a question this court should attempt to answer in this judgment," the judges wrote.
The substantial reduction in the award was the result of the appeal court's ruling that the son's Japanese business, which includes 13 buildings in Tokyo, should be excluded from the calculation.
Much of Li's wealth was tied up in property in Japan, including shops rented by brands such as Prada, Audi, H&M and Zara.
The court had heard that the father gave his son a gift of US$47.3 million as seed funds to develop the Japanese business and that there is an agreement between the two that the father would have the right to buy back shares of the business at a nominal price.
The judges said the lower court had failed to take account the father's right to buy back the shares.
~~~~~~~~
| Name (English) | TSANG & CO., FLORENCE |
| Address (English) | 301, 3/F., GOLDEN STAR BUILDING, 20-24 LOCKHART ROAD, WANCHAI, HONG KONG |
| Address (Chinese) | 香港灣仔駱克道20-24號 金星大廈3樓301室 |
| Telephone | 2381-1689 |
| Fax | 2525-8893 |
| DX No. | NIL |
| ftsangco@gmail.com | |
| Staff | |
| Sole Proprietor | TSANG CHIU WING, FLORENCE 曾昭穎 |
(Source 1: http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/news/art/20140111/18588043)
(Source 2: http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=90979&currpage=T)
(Source 3: http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1402308/court-slashes-record-divorce-payout-property-scions-ex-wife)
(Source 4: http://www.hklawsoc.org.hk/pub_e/memberlawlist/member_firm.asp?id=163074)
沒有留言:
張貼留言