Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
and
YIU Respondent
AND BETWEEN
YIU Applicant
and
_________________
_________________
-2-
JUDGMENT
_________________
Background
After the marriage the Wife moved to live with the Husband
and his parents at a Beverly Hill property which was owned by JP.
The property was later sold by the Wife in early 1997 for
$11,880,000. The provisional agreement for sale was signed on 16 th
January 1997 and the completion took place on 5 th March 1997. The net
sale proceeds of $8,600,000 was then put in the bank account of the
Wife’s mother Madam Lee.
from their Beverly Hill property to the Provident Centre which was close
to his office and that it was also more convenient to his mother who had
to go to the wet market to purchase grocery twice a day. He says
although there was no expressed discussion with the Wife as to their
respective share of interest in the property, as he had contributed about
$1.5 million towards the purchase price, legal costs and stamp duty, he
believes he should have 1/3 share in the property with 2/3 to the Wife.
price and the then increased market price of $11 million, to which he
refused. This led to a heated argument between the Wife and the
Husband’s mother and as a result the Husband says his parents refused to
move to the Provident Centre Property and so the parties remained in the
Beverly Hill property.
The Husband does not accept that the property was Madam
Lee’s investment as alleged by the Wife. He believes that although some
of the money for the purchase price might have come from Madam Lee’s
bank accounts, they actually belonged to the Wife, as was the case with
the City Garden property which was purchased in the Wife’s sole name.
He also denies the Wife’s allegation that his payment towards the
purchase price was repayment of money owed to Madam Lee whom he
says was merely a factory worker in the past with limited income and that
as she had been unemployed in recent years, she could not have afforded
an investment as substantial as the purchase of the Provident Centre
Property.
The Husband believes that the Wife, on the other hand, was
wealthy and that she had for years put most of her income in some bank
accounts in joint name with her mother to avoid tax liabilities, which was
also the reason why she had made her mother, who knew nothing about
-9-
the insurance business, as one of her agents in order to divert some of her
clients to her mother’s name in order to earn more commissions. He
therefore believes that the Wife paid for her share of the purchase of the
Provident Centre Property from her money in the joint accounts with her
mother, and that since the property belonged to both he and the Wife, the
disposition of the net sale proceeds of $8.6 million by her to her mother
which took place after the filing of her divorce petition was clearly
intended to defeat his claims for ancillary reliefs against her in the
divorce proceedings or to deprive him of his fair share in the sale
proceeds and should therefore be set aside.
The Wife says that the Provident Centre Property was her
mother’s investment and that it was purchased in her name solely for the
purpose of making use of the low-interest loan which she could obtain
from AIA, as she had done before with the purchase of the City Garden
property by her mother. She insists that all the purchase money came
from her mother and that the alleged payments of the Husband were in
fact his repayments of money owed to her mother from some earlier
property investments which her mother participated through his
connection.
The Wife says prior to her marriage she used to reside with
her parents. She started to work as an insurance agent in late 1985 and
had since made regular contribution to her mother. In 1987 her mother
decided to move the family from their low cost public housing unit into a
Lei King Wan property which her mother purchased with her own
savings. In 1990 her mother sold the property for $1,238,000 and used
- 10 -
the sale proceeds to purchase the City Garden Property for $1,490,000.
This time the property was purchased in the Wife’s name as she could
benefit from a low-interest staff loan from AIA.
After the marriage the Wife moved from the City Garden
property to the Husband’s home at Beverly Hill, but she continued to
contribute to her mother’s household. In addition to her job at AIA, the
Wife says she often had to assist the Husband in running his company JP
the main business of which was investing and speculating in real
properties. She says she had also regularly put part of her income in JP’s
accounts to meet the company’s expenses but as she was busy with her
work at AIA, she had to enlist her mother’s assistance from time to time
to do the banking for her, and that on some occasions when the Husband
was in need of money for his business, she would borrow for him from
her mother.
The Wife says the Husband had however kept these monies
and was reluctant to repay Madam Lee. She says when her mother
- 11 -
The Wife further says that on 15th February 1996 when she
and the Husband attended at the solicitor’s office to sign the formal sale
and purchase agreement, the various payments made by the Husband
towards the balance of the down payment and the stamp duty were all
part of the repayment of the money which he owed her mother and not for
his share in the property.
In 1990 Madam Lee and her family moved to the bigger City
Garden property to improve their living standard. The property was
purchased in the Wife’s name because she had then become entitled to
low-interest staff loan from AIA, but Madam Lee says the purchase
moneys were all paid by her from the sale proceeds of her Lei King Wan
property and from her savings. She says the arrangement was that as her
daughter would assist her with the monthly mortgage payment, her
monthly contribution to the family was therefore reduced accordingly.
- 13 -
This continued after her daughter had married and moved out of the City
Garden property until it was sold in 1996.
The Law
The Issues
brought his family to view the property on that day with his sister acting
as his estate agent. He says he had intended to purchase the property
through his company JP but at the time of the signing of the provisional
sale and purchase agreement, the Wife suddenly suggested purchasing the
property in her sole name in order to take advantage of the low-interest
AIA loan. He says it was the first time he learnt about such a staff loan
of AIA but he thought as they were husband and wife, he therefore let the
Wife purchased the property in her sole name. The completion date was
however put some 7½ months later on 30th September 1996 as he says he
needed time to sell his Beverly Hill Property to finance the purchase of
the Provident Centre Property.
Let’s say the Wife on 3rd February 1996 made the suggestion
of AIA loan so suddenly that the Husband was not given sufficient time
to consider before agreeing to her purchasing the property in her sole
name. But the formal sale and purchase agreement was to take place at
his solicitor’s office on 16th February 1996, some two weeks later which
would surely have given the Husband, his parents as well as his sister
who he says was acting as his estate agent enough time to consider the
implication of the Wife’s suggestion and an opportunity for him to
change his mind about her suggestion or to request to add his name as the
purchaser in the formal sale and purchase agreement.
This however did not happen and the agreement was signed
by the Wife in her sole name on 16th February 1996 when she paid the
balance of the initial deposit in the sum of $338,300 at the solicitor’s
office which the Husband also attended. His evidence is that on that
occasion he contributed by making 2 separate payments to the Wife in
the respective sum of $80,000 and $65,000, and that later on 9 th March
1996 he paid for the stamp duty in the sum of $230,532.50. His evidence
on this was first set out in Paragraph 4 of his 2 nd Affirmation and in his
evidence in chief he gave more details as follows:-
A: Yes.
Q: Your relationship with her was good ?
A: Yes.
Q: Are you sure that she billed you for $83,830 ?
A: Yes.
Q: Why did she bill you ?
A: Perhaps she thought she needed to charge this
commission.
Q: But you are her brother.
A: She required me to pay.
Q: She was residing with you ?
A: Yes, but she still charged me.
Q: The two of you are still in good relationship ?
A: Yes.
Q: But she didn’t even give you a discount ?
A: May be she would later give a discount, but due to
breakdown of relationship, she decided to charge in
full.
Q: It is too late for you to say this, because you have
already said in your evidence that you had paid this
amount.
A: Yes.
Q: She didn’t even give you a discount ?
A: Why don’t you ask her ?
Q: You were residing with her, didn’t you ask ?
A: I didn’t ask, no reason to.
Q: You simply paid ?
A: Yes.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the Husband has been able
to produce copies of cheques, bank records and other documentary
evidence to support his various alleged payments made in respect of the
many relevant transactions mentioned in these proceedings, he has not
produced a single piece of evidence to substantiate his payment of the
commission which at $83,830 is not an insignificant sum. In fact I am
unable to find from the disclosed bank statements either of the Husband’s
personal bank accounts or of the bank accounts of JP of any withdrawals
at the material time that may remotely resemble such payment. I accept
that the Husband did try to explain in cross-examination that he paid the
agency commission on two separate occasions by both cash and cheque
and hence he was unable to say for certain from the bank statements
which withdrawals were for such payments. However he is unable to
explain why the commission was settled in such manner. If he had
difficulties at that time to settle the payment in one go, he could have
asked his sister to waive the commission or to give him a discount, and if
he did pay in full, there is no reason why he could only produce the
receipt but no other documentary evidence of such payments. I simply
find it difficult to accept his evidence on this issue.
clearly it was important to his mother that his name be included in the
property, as the Wife’s refusal would lead to a big quarrel with her which
resulted in the whole family remaining in Beverly Hill instead of moving
to their new home in North Point, something which the Husband says
they had been planning to do so since late 1995. This begs the obvious
question that even if she did not know that the Provident Centre Property
was purchased in the Wife’s sole name on 3rd February 1996, which is
unlikely, why had the Husband’s mother waited so long thereafter until
the time for the completion of the purchase was getting close, to raise her
big concern about the question of ownership of the property ? There is
simply no explanation from the Husband.
First of all, the basis upon which the Husband arrived at his
share of 1/3 in the property is wholly and fundamentally wrong. The
purchase price of the property was $8,383,000. Adding the stamp duty
and costs of its purchase would bring the total amount to over $8.5
million. Even if I were to accept that the Husband had paid a total sum of
$1.5 million towards the purchase of the property including stamp duty
- 34 -
and agent commission, the fact that the balance of the purchase price was
paid by the Wife’s AIA loan and the sale proceeds of her mother’s City
Garden Property in which he had no interest at all, irregardless the true
beneficial ownership thereof, the Husband’s alleged payment of $1.5
million could not have, mathematically or otherwise, given him 1/3 share
in the Provident Centre Property. Putting his case at the highest and
using his own basis of calculation, it would be at most only 1/5.
Furthermore, the Husband’s evidence here is that the original
intention was to put up 30% of the purchase price by him and his Wife
whilst the balance of 70% was to be financed by a mortgage loan. This
clearly contradicts his earlier evidence in Paragraph 7 of the same
affirmation when he tried to explain that the completion date was put
back by 7½ months because he intended to finance the purchase by
selling the Beverly Hill Property. If it was indeed the Husband well-
considered plan to purchase the Provident Centre Property as the new
home for his family, it is incredible that he could be so inconsistent and
contradictory in his evidence on how he had intended to finance the
purchase.
Nor is he able to challenge the Wife’s evidence about an
incident which occurred after the purchase and which she says will go to
refute once and for all the Husband’s allegation that he had any interest in
the Provident Centre Property. The Wife says that after her mother had
sold her City Garden Property but before she could move into her new
home, she needed somewhere to store her chandeliers and therefore the
Wife took her chandeliers home and placed in her maid’s room. When
her mother-in-law did not allow it, she then put the chandeliers in the
boot of the Husband’s car. On 16th January 1997 the Husband told her to
take the chandeliers out of his car as he needed to transport some roasted
- 35 -
pork for the celebration of the opening of his branch office in Mei Foo
Sun Chuen. When the Wife replied that she had nowhere to store her
mother’s chandeliers, the Husband said that she could take it to her
mother’s Provident Centre Property. This incident led to a heated quarrel
between the parties which also involved the Husband’s parents and the
Wife’s eventual departure from the matrimonial home on the following
day. The Wife submits that the fact that the Husband told her to take the
chandeliers to her mother’s property at the Provident Centre could only
mean one thing, i.e. the property belonged to her mother and that the
Husband never had any interest therein. This is strong argument indeed
but the Husband has never even tried to challenge the Wife’s evidence on
the incident.
For the reasons aforesaid I have come to the conclusion that
the Husband’s evidence that he purchased the Provident Centre Property
jointly with the Wife as their new home is inconsistent, contradictory and
ultimately unconvincing and cannot be sustained. I believe that he made
up this story in order to boost his claims against the sale proceeds. This
however by no means follows that he had no interest in the property.
After all, it is not in dispute that he had made certain payments towards
the purchase price, and if they were not meant to be his share of the
investment in the property, then what could they be ? To answer this it is
necessary to consider the evidence of both the Wife and Madam Lee
about the Husband’s payments.
The Husband’s evidence as to his payments made towards
the purchase of the Provident Centre Property is detailed in Paragraph 17
of his 7th Affirmation. OP the $1.5 million which he alleges to have paid,
he says $1,205,592.50 could be traced from the relevant bank records, the
particulars of which he sets out as follows:-
- 36 -
Total HK$1,205,592.50
=============
Of these alleged payments, only items (1), (2), (5) and (9)
totalling $810,532.50 are admitted by the Wife and her mother Madam
Lee as having come from the Husband towards the purchase of the
property, not as his investment but merely repayment of monies due and
- 37 -
owing to Madam Lee of her capital and profit from two earlier Joint-
investments in a Robinson Place Property and another Provident Property
Centre as well as a previous personal loan made to the Husband. They
deny the other alleged payments of the Husband. I shall now consider the
parties’ evidence on this issue in details, first the Robinson Place
investment.
The Husband’s evidence is first set out in his 2nd Affirmation
in which he said he was invited by his uncle Mr Yiu K.W. to take a 20%
stake in his investment in this property, but when the time came for him
to pay his uncle for his share, he did not have available funds handy and
so he asked the Wife to lend him the money. After the property was sold,
his uncle returned to him the capital as well as his share of the profit. He
said he must have repaid his Wife the money she lent him for this
transaction but was unable to pinpoint the time or manner of his
repayment.
However, in his later 7th Affirmation, the Husband changed
his evidence by saying that the 20% stake was in fact an investment of
him and the Wife in equal share and that their respective share of capital
and profit of $166,110.90 each were returned to them after the sale of the
property.
In his evidence-in-chief, the Husband changed his evidence
again when he said the following:-
profit and instead allow him to keep the money ? I simply find the
Husband’s explanation for not repaying the Wife for her share of the
investment because they often used each other’s money and that he had
paid her some other money during the marriage wholly unconvincing and
unsatisfactory. Madam Lee’s evidence, on the other hand, is more
coherent and consistent.
She says she was given this investment opportunity as the
Husband happened to be short of funds for the investment at that time and
as his uncle needed someone to chip in financially for an investment
which was surely going to make a quick profit, and as her daughter didn’t
wish to pass up such an opportunity, she was therefore asked to join in
the investment. She says she therefore paid for her share of the capital
investment from her bank account and is able to produce copies of the 2
cheques issued by her respectively dated 16th November 1993 for
$177,352.00 and 23rd November 1993 for $3,131.00 in favour of the
Husband’s uncle as evidence of her investments, the timing and amount
of which both support her case, and is confirmed by the land search
record which shows that the property was purchased by a company of the
Husband’s uncle on 19th November 1993 for $6,955,000 and was later
sold for $9,360,000.
What is more convincing of Madam Lee’s evidence comes
from copies of invoices of the solicitors handling the transaction produced
by her, one of which dated 15th November 1993 shows what she says to
be the handwriting of the Husband’s uncle about her share of the legal
costs of $3,131 for which she later issued the 2nd cheque referred above
on 23rd November 1993. It is true that the handwritten words of “Yiu
mother 3131” on the invoice may at first appear more logically to refer to
the Husband’s mother instead of Madam Lee whose maiden name or her
- 41 -
husband’s name is neither Yiu. However even the Husband agrees that it
could not have meant his mother as she was never involved in this
investment and there was no reason for his uncle to make any reference to
his mother on the invoice. And since the Husband does not dispute that
the handwriting was that of his uncle or that it could be forged or faked
by the Wife or Madam Lee, the only logical conclusion one can draw on
the evidence is that the uncle meant to refer Madam Lee as “Yiu mother”
when he stated her share of the legal costs for the investment.
The Husband has also tried to cast doubt on Madam’s Lee’s
evidence by arguing that since this investment was bound to make
money, why would he pass up such an opportunity to his mother-in-law
even if he was short of funds as he could have borrowed the $180,000
odd which was required for his share from anyone, such as the Wife or
his family, or for that matter from Madam Lee, rather than giving up such
a good opportunity. However it was also his evidence that he did at that
time intend to speculate on Robinson Place which was a popular new
project but as he was unable to successful draw lot for a unit, whereas his
uncle was successful, he was therefore invited by his uncle to contribute
towards the purchase. I find this inconsistent with his evidence that he
had to borrow from his Wife for the first payment as he did not have
sufficient money, whereas although he says that the 2nd payment was paid
by him, he cannot remember the exact amount or other details. If there
was the original intention to speculate on a property on his own which
was then worth almost $7 million, as was indeed his evidence, why did he
not have his funds ready for a mere 20% contribution towards his uncle’s
unit and instead had to borrow from his Wife ? It just doesn’t sound right
for someone who says he had planned for such an investment.
- 42 -
A: I don’t know.
Q: It was written on this fax, $4.9 million with certain
calculations on expenses and profits ?
A: I don’t know anything about this.
Q: You then issued a cheque by JP for the stamp duty,
and page 697 of your Affirmation Bundle shows a
bank statement of JP about a cheque No. 007288 for
$134,810.00 ?
A: Yes.
Q: Although the stamp duty was stated to be
$134,750.00 for this property, whilst the amount of
this cheque is $134,810.00, probably because you
paid for some photocopying charges as well ?
A: I don’t know.
Q: After paying this sum, subtracting your share, you
should have paid $364,255 ?
A: I don’t know.
Q: As there was no commission payable, you therefore
paid $275,595 which is calculated as follows:
$459,375 being your half share of the purchase price
less stamp duty of $134,180 gives $324,565, and less
$49,000 of commission gives $275,565. Look at this
cheque No. 007287 for $275,595 issued by JP for this
property to Brillient Peak. The difference of $30
between these 2 amounts is probably photocopying
charges or other charges.
A: I don’t agree.
Q: Look at the receipt issued by Messrs T.L. Ip & Co.
solicitors for $735,000 being the deposit for this
property.
A: I don’t know.
Q: The bottom shows some Chinese writing, were they
by you ?
A: I don’t know, some looks like mine, but I don’t
know.
Q: It says $275,595 ?
A: Yes.
Q: Your mother-in-law paid you $200,000 for her share
of the investment in this property ?
A: I don’t agree.
Q: You in fact needed this sum for the payment of
$275,595 ?
A: I don’t agree.
Q: Look at the document which shows that $590,000
was the 10% deposit of the sale price received from
the purchaser ?
- 51 -
A: Yes.
Q: The commission of $59,000 was paid by Brillient
Peak ?
A: Yes.
Q: This is the profit made, to be divided by 2 less the
commission ?
A: I don’t know.
Q: See the deposit of $265,500 on 24th March 1994.
A: Yes.
Q: Do you still say that the $200,000 paid by mother-in-
law was from the Kornhill Property ?
A: It was my Wife who deposited the $200,000, not
mother-in-law.
Q: Could be you ?
A: Could be any Mr Yiu.
Q: How many Mr Yiu in JP ?
A: Me and my father.
Q: I put to you that your father was not signatoree to
JP’s account with Kincheng Bank at that time.
A: I don’t agree.
was made through the Wife whom Madam Lee totally trusted and in view
of the good relationship between the parties at that time.
As regard the remaining items of the Husband’s alleged
payment which are disputed, I also find the Husband’s evidence
unconvincing and unsatisfactory. The alleged payment of $10,000 was
only made 2 days after the sale and purchase agreement and was a cash
cheque endorsed by the Husband himself. His evidence as to why the
payment was made to the Wife and the reason why he was able to
remember this particular payment is incredible to say the least. The same
can be said about the alleged payment of $36,230 which was made on
15th July 1996, some 5 months after the sale and purchase agreement but
more than 2 months to go before the scheduled complete date when the
balance of the purchase price would have to be paid. Although it is not
disputed that this payment was received by the Wife, she denies that it
had anything to do with the purchase of the property and set out her
evidence in details in her Affirmation supported by documents that it was
the Husband’s reimbursement to her for various expenses unconnected
with the property, which evidence I find to be much more convincing and
consistent than the Husband’s.
I have already dealt with the alleged agent commission of
$83,830 earlier in the judgment and rejected the Husband’s evidence. As
to the last disputed payment of $200,000 allegedly made on 21 st
September 1996, the date is admittedly closer to the scheduled date of
completion, but the Husband’s evidence of such payment is again
unsatisfactory. He was only able to produce a copy cheque for $100,000
instead of $200,000 and that this cheque was in fact cashed by himself.
When asked why he did not simply just give the cheque to the Wife
instead of cashing it himself and then gave the cash to her as alleged, his
- 54 -
explanation that because he did not have her bank account number is
unbelievable, in particular in view of the fact that he had in the past
issued cheques to her or deposited cheques into her bank account. I do
not believe that he had paid this sum to the wife as alleged and suspect
that he simply picked out this item from his bank statements because of
its proximity to the date of completion to push up his alleged contribution
towards the purchase price of the Provident Centre Property.
Having considered the evidence before me and for the
reasons aforesaid, I am satisfied that the Husband did not purchase the
Provident Centre Property jointly with the Wife as alleged and that his
various payments which I have found to have been made towards the
purchase of the Property were repayments of monies which he at that
time owed Madam Lee and not his contribution for his share in the
property, whereas his remaining alleged payments have been successfully
refuted by the Wife or Madam Lee. This however by no means follow
that his S.17 Application has failed as the property was purchased in the
Wife’s name and that if the Wife had an interest in the property, whether
wholly or jointly with her mother, her disposition of the sale proceeds
could still come within the section and liable to be set aside. I shall now
examine the evidence as to the ownership of the property.
gone up as against the Hong Kong dollars. In January 1987 when she
decided to purchase the Lei King Wan Property for $636,210, she says
she had about $400,000 in savings from which she paid $240,000 as
deposit and borrowed $390,000 from the Bank of Canton by means of a
mortgage for the balance of the purchase price.
On 7th December 1988 Madam Lee re-mortgaged the Lei
King Wan Property to Chase Manhattan Bank for a loan of $790,000 part
of which she applied to discharge the mortgage due to the Bank of
Canton, and lent $280,000 to the Wife for her purchase of a taxi in 1989.
She admits that the Wife has since not repaid the said sum to her, but
denies that the Wife had ever paid any money for the purchase of the Lei
King Wan Property. She reasons that since the Wife had only been
working for less than 2 years at the time of the purchase, she could not
have been able to save up $240,000 for the deposit which she insists all
came from her own savings.
Madam Lee says in 1990 she decided to move to the City
Garden Property after her daughter’s office had moved to North Point.
The purchase price for the City Garden Property was $1,490,000 and as
her daughter was then entitled to housing loan from AIA, Madam Lee
says she decided to purchase the property in her daughter’s name so as to
benefit from the low-interest loan. She also put the Lei King Wan
Property in the market for sale to finance the purchase of the new
property. She says she paid an initial deposit of $30,000 for the City
Garden Property and on 20th February 1990 when the sale and purchase
agreement was signed by her daughter on her behalf, she paid a further
deposit of $119,000 from her current account with the Bank of
Communication. The sale was completed on 12th March 1990 when the
balance of the purchase price was paid mainly by a mortgage of about
- 58 -
$1.2 million from Chase Manhattan Bank. She has produced copies of
various cheques and receipts as evidence of payments made by her
towards the purchase of this property including legal costs and stamp
duty.
Madam Lee says she was however unable to sell the Lei
King Wan Property in time to finance the purchase of the City Garden
Property which explains the reason why a mortgage had to be obtained
from Chase Manhattan Bank for the purchase. The Lei King Wan
Property was only sold on 2nd May 1990 for $1,238,000, the net proceeds
of which she used to discharge the Chase Manhattan Bank mortgage
which was then replaced by the AIA loan, whilst the balance of about
$400,000 was then paid into her own bank account, the particulars of
which however she says she can no longer recall due to the long lapse of
time.
The City Garden Property was about 800 sq. ft. with 3
bedrooms. The family moved into their new home in April 1990 with
Madam Lee and her husband each occupied one room while the Wife
occupied the 3rd room. Madam Lee says as the monthly repayment of
the AIA loan was deducted from her daughter’s salary, her daughter
therefore reduced her contribution of the household expenses and
maintenance to Madam Lee and her husband, and that this arrangement
continued even after her daughter married in 1993 and moved to the
Husband’s Beverly Hill Property until the sale of the City Garden
Property in 1996.
Madam Lee says in 1996 she had about $3 million in savings
and in view of the booming property market at that time which she says
everybody was making money from speculating in properties, she
therefore decided to invest in the Provident Centre Property. She says she
- 59 -
Counsel for the Husband who confronted her with the wage indexes
published by the Government Census and Statistics Department in the
garment industry in 1983 and 1987 which showed that the average
incomes of garment workers in various positions in that period were only
between $3,000 - $4,000 per month, much less than her claimed income
of about $10,000.
In reply, Madam Lee gave the following account of her
earned income:-
“In 1975 I sublet part of my flat to a couple, where the
Wife Mrs Ma was working in a fashion company. She
introduced me to work in the factory of that company
where the salaries were higher than elsewhere. Whilst Mrs
Ma and her co-worker always had afternoon tea and
played mahjong in the afternoon, I would work very hard
and was able to earn more income. In fact I had sewed so
many pieces of clothes that I was afraid to tell others for
fear that it might affect their wages. Since working in this
factory, I was able to earn much more. From 1975 to 1979
I was able to earn $4,000 - 5,000 per month. However later
the factory closed down in 1978 and I went to another
factory also at higher salary. I worked in this factory until
I moved to the Kwei Shing public housing unit. Because I
was then well familiar with fashion, I therefore looked for
a job as sample maker, and I found the job in this factory.
Before this I never worked as a sample maker, so I gave it a
try. After working for 2 – 3 months I discovered that the
clothings of this company not too high class, so I looked for
another job. A friend introduced me to work in another
factory which made a lot of evening dresses in various
styles. Later this factory also closed down. Then I came to
work in this very high class fashion factory until 1988.
Because I was familiar in high class fashion, I was offered
higher wages.”
that she was unable to say what interest rate or exchange rate it was in the
80s for Australian or New Zealand dollars which she says she had
invested at that time, but I also remind myself that such discrepencies
may be more to do with her stretching her memory over minute details of
things that happened more than 10 years ago rather than indication of her
having lied in her evidence.
No matter what the Husband says about Madam Lee’s
alleged income or savings, I don’t think he is able to dispute that Lei
King Wan Property was purchased by her or that the purchase monies did
not come from the Wife since, as argued by Counsel for Madam Lee, the
Wife could not have been able to save up $240,000 for the downpayment
after having worked as an insurance agent for only 1½ years, as it would
mean that she was then able to earn substantially and to put aside a net
sum of $15,000 every month during that period to be able to have that
kind of savings which is most unlikely, if not virtually impossible, for an
inexperienced insurance agent to achieve within such a short time. In
fact, it is the Husband’s submission that the Wife only started to earn a
good living as an insurance sales manager in the early 90s and after she
received 2 large sums of money from the sale of her taxi in 1993 and the
insurance payout to her after the death of her former boyfriend.
Nor can it be disputed that the purchase of the City Garden
Property in 1990 was partly funded by the sale proceeds of the Lei King
Wan Property. Although at first sight the timing of the sale of the Lei
King Wan Property and the purchase of the City Garden Property did not
seem to support that, Madam Lee was later able to explain satisfactorily
in her 2nd Affirmation as to such discrepency. She was also able to
produce documentary evidence that the downpayments and legal costs all
came from her personal accounts.
- 65 -
Clearly the only basis for the Husband to allege that the
Wife had placed her monies or income with her mother is that she wanted
to avoid tax liabilities and to maximize her commission earnings.
- 68 -
Looking at the point of avoiding tax liabilities alone, one wonders how
the Wife by placing her income with her mother could avoid her tax
liabilities since she, as every tax payer in Hong Kong who is an
employee, would have to pay tax based on the information provided by
her employer, i.e. AIA, in the Employer’s Tax Return of Remuneration
submitted annually to the Inland Revenue Department on her behalf, and
in the absence of any evidence that she had other jobs or business which
she had not disclosed, I simply fail to see the logic in this argument of the
Husband.
As to his second basis for alleging that the Wife had placed
her income with her mother because she had been using her mother’s
name to sell insurance policies so as to earn more commission which, if
true, could only mean that she had placed her mother’s earned
commissions which he believes to be hers into her mother’s bank
accounts. However her mother only started to work as an insurance
agent for AIA in October 1990, whilst the City Garden Property was
purchased in early 1990 when the payments and expenses were paid from
Madam Lee’s account in February and March 1990, long before the Wife
could put her commissions allegedly earned through her mother into her
accounts. Hence it cannot be argued that such money of the Wife had
gone from her mother’s accounts into the purchase of the City Garden
Property.
Furthermore, is it not self-defeating to the Wife if the sole
purpose of placing her income with her mother was to avoid tax liabilities
and any possible investigation by the Inland Revenue Department, then
for her to withdraw such income from her mother’s accounts to purchase
the City Garden Property in her sole name without making some
documents such as a declaration of trust in favour of her mother just to
- 69 -
show that the property did not belong to her in case she had to answer to
Inland Revenue Department’s enquiries ? On careful analysis of the
Husband’s arguments and for the reasons aforesaid, I have to say that his
basis for alleging that the Wife had placed money with her mother which
were later used to purchase the City Garden Property cannot stand and
that his argument that the Wife had a beneficial interest in that property is
rejected.
This however does not mean that it will bring a quick end to
the Husband’s case regarding the Wife’s interest in the Provident Centre
Property as it was purchased in 1996 and with Madam Lee admittedly
working under the Wife as an insurance agent from 1990 until 1997, the
Husband’s argument of the Wife placing her income with her mother
which eventually ended up in the purchase money for the property can no
longer be easily dismissed as too far-fetched or invalid. In fact the
Husband has alleged, in support of his argument, that the Wife was
penalised by the Inland Revenue Department in the early 90s for failure
to disclose accurately her taxable income and was ordered to pay $1
million as additional tax, and that she and her mother had set up joint
bank accounts in which they mixed their monies together for no good
reason.
The Wife denies that she was asked by the Inland Revenue
Department to pay as much as $1 million for tax and penalty. She
explains that it has been a practice in her trade to deduct expenses such as
secretary, printing, entertainment, etc. from the gross income for filing
tax returns, but in 1994 the Inland Revenue Department decided not to
allow certain items of expenses claimed by her over the years and hence
she was required to pay additional tax dating back from 1988 to 1993
totalling $329,005 including 5% surcharge as she asked to pay by
- 70 -
instalments. She has produced copies of her various tax returns in that
period and the demand for additional tax as evidence to refute the
Husband’s allegation of her having to pay $1 million in additional tax and
fine. Regardless of the correct amount of additional tax that the Wife had
to pay, I am unable to see its relevancy to the issue over her possible
interest in the Provident Centre Property, the same can be said about the
fact that the Wife has not repaid her mother’s loan of $280,000 after
selling her taxi which is not at all relevant to the issue.
The Husband’s case of the Wife using her mother’s name to
sell insurance policies in order to earn more commissions, on the other
hand, may be more relevant if true and that these commissions were paid
into her mother’s bank accounts in trust for the Wife and were later used
to purchase the Provident Centre Property, in particular of the fact that
they had at the material time held joint accounts.
Madam Lee did appear not very knowledgeable on how
insurance premia are calculated or on the differences between different
types of insurance policies under cross-examination, which she gave the
excuse that she did not have to do the paper work herself in her line of
work. But if what the Husband alleges is true that her earned
commissions in fact belonged to the Wife, and since she had no other job
or income when she was said to be working as an insurance agent, then
how was she able to meet her own personal or household expenses during
these years ? Such an arrangement, if true, would mean that the Wife
would have to fully support Madam Lee and her household and given the
fact that Madam Lee was only earning an average income of about
$10,000 per month as an insurance agent from 1990 to 1995 according to
the summary prepared by her to demonstrate how she was able to save up
$3 million between 1987 and 1995, which is the only evidence on her
- 71 -
mother. It was the first time I met and knew Sze’s mother,
Lee.”
the investment was only for a short term and as she did put the property
up for sale in January 1997 by newspapers advertisement, the unfortunate
timing of the sale and her daughter’s commencement of the divorce
proceedings in the same month of January 1997 was merely a
coincidence and not the Wife’s planned attempt to dissipate her assets.
In the absence of any other direct or concrete evidence of the Wife’s
contribution to the purchase of the property, and in the circumstances of
the case and the evidence that have been presented before me, there is
very little merits or substance left in the Husband’s argument that the
property was the Wife’s investment.
The Wife married the Husband in October 1993. She was
at the same time made a director and shareholder of the Husband’s
company JP which was the main and most important matrimonial asset of
the parties. The Wife says she had during the marriage, i.e. between
1993 and 1996 paid about $1.8 million either as loans or injection of
capital into JP. The Husband says that the Wife’s total contribution to JP
was much less, only about $535,000 as of 31st December 1995. The Wife
has produced copies of her bank statements, deposit slips, etc. as
evidence of her alleged contribution. She also says in evidence that in
addition she also contributed regularly to the running expenses of JP and
the family household expenses such as salary of the maids employed at
different time of the marriage as well as the child’s expenses. She
reasons that as she earned only between $30,000 to $40,000 per month on
average during the marriage, it would be virtually impossible to have any
savings when she had to meet her own personal expenses as well as those
expenses and payments aforesaid, let alone to have $3 million to invest in
the Provident Centre Property.
- 78 -
successfully rebuted the presumption that she had any beneficial interest
in the property.
Conclusion
This case was complicated by the intricate financial
relationship amongst the 3 parties resulted in enormous amount of
evidence given in a trial which lasted almost 30 days, with most of the
evidence diametrically opposed between the 2 sides. However, with also
many of the facts of the dealings and transactions between the parties
could not be disputed, it is virtually impossible for the evidence of the
party guilty of not telling the truth to hold up consistently and logically
against those facts, and at the end it is inevitable that the case of that
party must fail upon close scrutiny. I have no difficulty in concluding
that the Husband is that guilty party. On the other hand, the evidence of
both the Wife and Madam Lee have been so consistent and so well
corroborated each other that the logical and reasonable conclusion is that
they have told the truth. Having considered all the facts and
circumstances of the case and the evidence before me, I am satisfied that
the Provident Centre Property was Madam Lee’s sole investment, that the
Wife was merely holding the property in trust for her and that neither the
Wife nor the Husband had any beneficial interest therein. It follows that
the sale proceeds of $8.6 million rightfully belong to Madam Lee and that
the Husband’s S.17 application must be dismissed, with costs to both the
Wife and Madam Lee not just because costs should follow the event but
also because I find that the Husband has fabricated his evidence in the
application. My order is therefore as follows:-
1. The Respondent Husband S.17 application is
dismissed;
- 80 -
( Bruno Chan )
District Judge
Miss. Jennifer Tsui instructed by M/S Wong, Hui & Co. for Petitioner /
1st Respondent.
Mr. Hylas Chung instructed by M/S Josip Ma & Co. for Respondent
/Applicant.
Miss. Anita Yip instructed by M/S Chaine, Chow & Barbara Hung for
2nd Respondent.