Clean Break In Divorce

Home

Category Archives: financial resources

Clean Break In Divorce

When you divorce in Hong Kong, the term “clean break” may be floated around when discussing ancillary relief or financial provision (or more commonly known as “maintenance” in USA jurisdictions).  So what is a clean break in a divorce? Clean Break simply refers to the distribution of property and/or payment of a lump sum to settle all financial matters, allowing the parties to move forward with a fresh start and without having to be reminded of the breakdown of the marriage by being tied to ongoing payments.

Under section 7 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192), the courts in Hong Kong are under a duty “to have regard to the conduct of the parties and all the circumstances of the case” including the following matters:

  • The income, earning capacity, property and other financial resources…;
  • The financial needs, obligations and responsibilities…of the parties…;
  • The standard of living enjoyed by the family before the breakdown of the marriage;
  • The age of each party to the marriage and the duration of the marriage;
  • Any physical or mental disability of either of the parties to the marriage;
  • The contributions made by each of the parties to the welfare of the family…’
  • …the value to either of the parties to the marriage of any benefit (for example, a pension) which, by reason of the dissolution…of the marriage, that party will lose the chance of acquiring.

In Hong Kong, the courts are not under any duty to consider whether a clean break is appropriate or not but it may be considered.  Generally speaking, a clean break is only an option when there is sufficient monies in a matrimonial pot which would allow the parties to move forward after the payment of one lump sum payment/distribution of property which would settle all financial claims.

In one such case, C v F [2008] HKFLR 1, the parties had a long-term marriage which began in 1965 and a Petition for divorce was filed by the Husband in February 2000.  Throughout the marriage, the Husband’s business had grown to the extent that he valued his assets at approximately HK$36 million with an income of approximately HK$800,000 per month.  The Husband alleged he had considerable debts as he was heavily indebted to the company and to his business partner.  The court ordered a transfer of the former matrimonial home, mortgage free, to the wife and a clean break lump sum to her of HK$15 million.

In YN v NA [2014] HKFLR 517, the court stated that “in big money cases, where the matrimonial assets are sufficient for a clean break to be achieved, a wife with ordinary career prospects is likely to have been compensated by an equal division of the assets and consideration of how the wife’s career might have progressed is unnecessary and should be avoided.”

It should be noted that once a clean break is achieved, a party cannot come back to the court and make an application for maintenance.  This in itself is the benefit and advantage with respect to a clean break: it allows the parties to move on with their lives, without being tied to each other by having to make monthly payments to one party and allows each party to live independently without any burdens of the past.

If you are going through a divorce, speak to your solicitor about a clean break and whether it’s the right option for you.  If there is a possibility of self-sufficiency, a clean break should be considered an option.  If you are concerned about an immediate clean break, discuss alternative options such as a deferred clean break or even consider nominal maintenance which would then allow you an open door to make an application for periodical payments in the future if need be, but at the same time lift the financial burden on the paying party at the current moment.

Spotlight Profile: Kyra Cornwall, Barrister, 1 Hare Court

In this Spotlight Profile, we are talking to Kyra Cornwall, Barrister at 1 Hare Court in London, England.  Kyra specializes in high profile matrimonial matters and has extensive experience working on family law matters involving international jurisdictions including Cayman Islands, Singapore, France, Russia and Hong Kong.

Kyra, it is such a pleasure to speak with you today as I know you run a very busy practice in London, England as Barrister to many high-profile matrimonial clients.  Kyra, this is your first spotlight profile here on Hong Kong Divorce, can you tell our readers more about yourself and the work that you do in the matrimonial arena in London? 

Thank you so much for inviting me. It’s a pleasure to be involved!

I am a Barrister practising at 1 Hare Court, the leading matrimonial finance set in England and Wales. We are based in the heart of legal London, in the middle of the Temple, and specialise in matrimonial finance cases. In my ten years at the Bar, I have developed a practice involving lots of international families, both representing them directly in England and Wales, and offering English advice where proceedings are taking place abroad.

Your practice extends to international jurisdictions.  Can you tell us the link that you have to matrimonial matters here in Hong Kong and your experience working on Hong Kong cases?

In 2017, I was awarded the Pegasus Scholarship by the Inns of Court which enabled me to spend that summer in Hong Kong working firstly at Withers then at Temple Chambers (with Richard Todd QC) and finally sitting in on cases at the Family Court with Her Honour Judge Melloy. The purpose of the scholarship is to enable lawyers to build their international awareness and forge links abroad. I had a particular interest in Hong Kong as my father’s family are from Hong Kong originally, and so had been looking for a way to develop international links on a professional basis as well as personally. That summer certainly gave me the ability to do both of those things.

Over the course of my stay, I was fortunate to meet a huge number of family law practitioners and was given a real insight into a legal system that is so similar to that in which I practise in the UK.  Since returning to the UK, I have maintained a Hong Kong focus to my work from London, continuing to advise on cases which include connections to Hong Kong.

Have you noticed any changes or differences in your practice as a result of Covid-19 and the ongoing pandemic?

Absolutely. When the pandemic hit in London, many practitioners were still working from hard copy papers and almost all court hearings were in person. Suddenly the courts were closed and the legal world had to take a giant leap into the 21st century. Within a matter of weeks, papers were being sent electronically and court hearings were taking place via video platform. Although there were some teething problems at the outset, in my view this has been transformative for life as a lawyer and at the Bar particularly.

Prior to the pandemic, a significant portion of my life was spent travelling to Court, waiting around at Court and travelling home again. Being able to operate remotely has virtually removed this, enabling people to work more efficiently and improving work life balance for practitioners.

Beyond this, for those cases involving parties based internationally or where a party has to travel a lot for work, the advent of video platform hearings has also made it much easier for them to be involved without disrupting their working lives so much.

That’s not to say that there have not been problems: there have been technical glitches along the way and there are difficulties when a party does not have more than one screen available to them, but for the most part I think that the pandemic has forced the legal profession to take positive steps that I hope will remain in place moving forward.

One of your areas of specialty is marital agreements.  Hong Kong follows the United Kingdom landmark decision as seen in Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42.  Do you see the law evolving or changing in the future with respect to marital agreements in the UK? 

Since the landmark decision in Radmacher, the courts have had to grapple with the questions of whether the parties had all the information material to their decision(s) to enter into a marital agreement, whether each party intended that the agreement should govern the financial consequences of the marriage ending and whether in all the circumstances this is fair.

Whilst the 2010 decision was followed by the Law Commission report in 2014 which suggested that marital agreements should in essence be upgraded to “Qualifying Nuptial Agreements” – i.e. enforceable contracts – in an attempt to provide more certainty to parties, this has not been made into law.

The current approach in the English courts is to focus on the circumstances in which agreements were reached and where they leave the parties in real terms financially, based on all the circumstances of the case. The recent reported decisions demonstrate a reluctance for the court to uphold agreements which are unfair or which do not meet needs objectively (see for example Brack v Brack [2018] EWCA Civ 2862, Ipekci v McConnell [2019] EWFC 19, IU v OS [2020] EWFC 98). The existence of an agreement does not automatically drive a case into needs territory only; it is one of the factors that weighs in the balance. Equally, a lack of legal advice does not automatically render an agreement unfair (see for example Versteegh v Versteegh [2018] EWCA Civ 1050).

That said, anecdotally I would say that a marital agreement that, for example, excludes sharing or fixes provision, does often have the impact of reducing a party’s claim where otherwise they might achieve more.

In Hong Kong, we see many expatriate couples with questions on whether to file in Hong Kong versus their home countries.  What advice would you give to those individuals who have a connection to both Hong Kong and England & Wales in terms of jurisdiction in regards to their divorce?

If I were to meet with a new client who had the option of getting divorced in both Hong Kong and England & Wales, I would suggest that they take local advice in both jurisdictions before making a decision. Where the outcome is likely to be similar (as between Hong Kong and England & Wales), it is likely to come down to questions of practicality.

There is one change coming in England & Wales however that may benefit one or both parties. No fault divorce is due to be brought in from April 2022 (i.e. being able to get divorced without having to plead any allegations of blame). This will hopefully help to drive down tensions and therefore reduce some of the distress that divorce proceedings can bring.

There’s sometimes an ongoing belief that England is a better forum to divorce because of the higher potential in terms of ancillary relief (finances) and costs.  Is this true or is this simply a misconception?

Both England & Wales and Hong Kong adopt bespoke outcomes on divorce, applying the concept of sharing, and the homemaker is seen to contribute just as much as the breadwinner. On that basis, assets in both jurisdictions are divided on a sharing basis if needs are met. Yes, the numbers are big, but England & Wales and Hong Kong are broadly similar in their approach to outcome.

To that extent, whilst London has the reputation of being generous on divorce, I think that is more due to the system that we apply (i.e. very similar to that of Hong Kong) as compared to the rest of the world. Broadly the same principles apply between England & Wales and Hong Kong when dividing assets and awarding maintenance, but other factors will play into needs-driven outcomes, such as the cost of living, parties’ abilities to work (e.g. visa issues), and access to the courts (Hong Kong grants jurisdiction where parties have a “substantial connection” at the date of petition/application, England & Wales operates a more stringent test).

This was such an interesting chat Kyra, thank you so much for your time.  We look forward to having you on board again to discuss other interesting and key topics in the area of matrimonial law!

About Kyra: 

Kyra is a barrister at 1 Hare Court in London, England.  Kyra specializes in financial remedies, claims after foreign divorce, nuptial agreements and jurisdiction disputes.  She is a member of the Family Law Barrister Association (FLBA) and the Inner Temple.

Kyra is described as a “a star in the marking, super clever, slick, elegant and professional” and “a smiling assassin” by both clients and peers.

Kyra’s practice is concentrated on high profile and international matrimonial cases, specifically issues dealing with forum disputes, cases with international trust and company structures, cases with complex issues of enforcement, issues of privilege and cases involving the enforcement of nuptial agreements. She regularly represents husbands and wives in high value and prominent matters, both led and alone in the High Court. She advises clients nationally and internationally, from jurisdictions including the Cayman Islands, Singapore and France, and has a particular interest in cases with links to Hong Kong, having undertaken the Pegasus Scholarship there in 2017.

Kyra is a contributing author of Rayden and Jackson on Divorce and Matrimonial Matters, a comprehensive and key guide for family law practitioners

For more information about Kyra and her practice, you can visit her Chambers’ website:  https://www.1hc.com/people/kyra-cornwall/

 

 

 

Spotlight Profile: Madeleine Booth, Barrister at Bernacchi Chambers

In this Spotlight Profile, we are talking to Madeleine Booth, Barrister at Bernacchi Chambers in Hong Kong.  Madeleine was recently named as one of the leading family and divorce law barristers in Hong Kong for 2021 by Doyles Guide.

Over the next year, we will touch base with Madeleine to discuss various hot topics in the area of matrimonial law and delve deeper into each subject and gain insight from her, as a barrister with expertise in the family law arena.

Madeleine, we spoke to you in September 2019 (pre-Covid) and you gave us a great rundown and overview of your work as a barrister in Hong Kong, pointing out the differences between a barrister and solicitor and the work that you do.  Can you tell us how you have been since pre-Covid days and whether you have seen any changes in the matrimonial sector since the Covid-19 pandemic? 

Since the last occasion, there’s certainly been a shift in the matrimonial sector as a consequence of the pandemic. To give just two key examples, there’s firstly been an unforeseeable, dramatic impact to various industries, which has had a knock-on effect on people’s income and perhaps even resulted in one or both spouses losing their job. Due to this, there’s been a marked increase in applications for variation of maintenance (monthly sums payable from one spouse to another, and/or for the benefit of the children of the family), as payments are no longer affordable or sustainable, either because of the loss of a job or a dramatic cut to an individual’s income.

Secondly, the situation caused by the pandemic has generally been a stressful, demanding time for families; both parents and children alike in many respects, and for a drawn out, extended period of time. Tensions and frustrations, exacerbated by limitations on travel and economic pressures, have led to fractures in marriages and co-parenting difficulties that have reportedly led to an increase in applications to the Family Court, whether it be for divorce, custody applications, relocation applications, or other relief. Unfortunately, the rise in cases coupled with the Family Court’s reduced operations for several months due to Covid-19 has resulted in an increase in delays for hearings. However, the judiciary is now working harder than ever to help clear the “backlog” caused.

What types of matrimonial disputes are you seeing more of with the changing social and economic climate in Hong Kong with the Covid-19 pandemic?  Do you anticipate any changes post-Covid?

As I alluded to earlier, there’s been an increase in variation of maintenance and interim maintenance applications, meaning requests by one spouse to (generally) reduce the amount of periodic payments made by them to the other spouse and/or paid for the benefit of the children of the family. This is usually due to a change in the applicant spouse’s earnings or sudden loss of work. Hand in hand with this is the rise in enforcement procedures as, when one party can no longer afford to pay, they begin defaulting on payments as they fall due. As a result, the other spouse may take out an application to enforce these arrears of payments, whether it be by an Order 45 Rule 6 application, judgment summons procedure, or seeking a prohibition order (which prevents a party from leaving Hong Kong until the sum owed is paid).

I would also say that there’s been a rise in relocation applications, where one spouse wishes to leave Hong Kong and relocate to another jurisdiction with the children of the family. Again, these cases are on the rise because of the global shift in socio-economic environments caused by the pandemic. A party may need to relocate because of the loss of work opportunities in Hong Kong and the better prospects of work in another country. If a party loses their job, Hong Kong may no longer be affordable and they may need to relocate back to their country of origin to seek familial support, or where costs of living are lower, or for education opportunities/better quality of life for their children.

It’s been predicted that Covid-19 is here to stay for the foreseeable future. It is uncertain at present what changes will occur once the pandemic is brought under control, but hopefully greater stability for families in Hong Kong.

We want to continue our discussions with you on several hot topics in the area of matrimonial law, which we will do over the course of this upcoming year.  To begin our series discussing hot topics in matrimonial law, let’s first tackle an area of great interest for those living in Hong Kong: marital agreements.

In Hong Kong, marital agreements are taken into consideration by the courts, but it’s not a guarantee that it will be followed.  Do you see that changing going forward, especially as other jurisdictions rely heavily on these types of agreements?

There have been no developments that would suggest that the interpretation of marital agreements in Hong Kong will change in the foreseeable future. Hong Kong often looks to other commonwealth jurisdictions, predominantly the United Kingdom, when considering evolutions in the law. The shift in Hong Kong’s approach to marital agreements followed the 2010 landmark decision of Radmacher v Granatino [2010] UKSC 42, in the UK (adopted in Hong Kong in the Court of Final Appeal decision SPH v SA (2014) 17 HKCFAR 364).

Currently, the approach to marital agreements in Hong Kong is that, whilst the Court is not obliged to give effect to nuptial agreements, they should give weight to them in circumstances where it is fair to do so. What will be considered “fair” depends on the facts of the particular case. In appropriate cases, the Court will hold the parties to their agreement and will not impose terms that it would otherwise have ordered were it not for the agreement. This is consonant with the current approach of the Courts in England.

Do Hong Kong courts take into consideration cross-jurisdiction agreements?  For example, what happens if an individual who is married overseas, moves to Hong Kong and subsequently gets divorced in Hong Kong and a marital agreement prepared and signed overseas is at the center of the dispute?

The same considerations would apply to a nuptial agreement whichever jurisdiction it is made in. The Hong Kong Family Court will consider whether it is fair to give the agreement weight in accordance with the principles set out in Radmacher, including but not limited to (1) whether the parties to the agreement were properly advised; (2) whether there was full financial disclosure prior to the signing of the agreement; (3) whether there was any duress exerted on one of the parties to sign the agreement; and (4) whether any unforeseen circumstances have arisen since the agreement that would render it unjust to hold the parties to it.

Have you ever had to argue before the Courts in Hong Kong regarding a marital agreement dispute?  In order to avoid future disputes with respect to marital agreements, what tips or advice can you give to those entering into these types of marital agreements? 

Yes, I have been involved in cases regarding marital agreement disputes. A nuptial agreement is generally more likely to be accorded weight if it can be shown to be both substantively and procedurally fair. Three foundational suggestions in respect of pre-nuptial agreements would be as follows:

  • Discuss the terms of the nuptial agreement well in advance of the marriage date (at least 28 days if not longer), which will assist in demonstrating that there was no duress or pressure on either party to sign the agreement in a hurry before the wedding date.
  • Both parties should receive independent legal advice (the parties cannot share one lawyer to advise them) on the agreement and should enter into it with full understanding and appreciation of its terms.
  • There should be sufficient disclosure to illustrate that the agreement was an informed decision.

It is very important to seek legal advice for a nuptial agreement from a qualified solicitor to ensure that its terms are substantively fair to both parties.

Thank you so much Madeleine for all your insight into this important topic.  We look forward to speaking to you again to discuss other key topics of interest!

About Madeleine: 

Madeleine’s practice encompasses both civil and criminal law, with a particular specialization in matrimonial work. Madeleine was recently named as one of the leading family and divorce law barristers in Hong Kong for 2021 by Doyles Guide.

In the Family Court, Madeleine has experience in contested financial and child related matters, and family related company and trust cases.

Having represented clients at Financial Dispute Resolution hearings, Children’s Dispute Resolution hearings, as well as at trial for preliminary issues (third party interests/property/companies), financial issues (MPS applications, ancillary relief trials) and child related matters (such as custody disputes, and applications under the Guardianship of Minors Ordinance), Madeleine’s experience is broad.

Madeleine is often called upon to make applications under s.17 of the MPPO, setting aside dispositions or applying for injunctions, on an urgent basis.

Madeleine also has experience in a number of other areas of legal practice, including civil litigation and criminal law. She has assisted senior counsel, and acted as sole legal counsel, in multiple hearings and trials at each level of court in Hong Kong, from its magistracies to the Court of Final Appeal. Madeleine appears in the High Court of Hong Kong regularly with respect to civil litigation matters, including trust related cases, injunctions, torts of harassment, intimidation, and unlawful means conspiracy, as well as summary judgment applications.

Madeleine’s experience extends beyond advocacy to include providing written opinions and legal advice, as well as assisting in mediations and arbitrations.

Misconduct In Divorce

In what will be considered one of the most stressful times in an individual’s life, it is no surprise that many people behave badly during a divorce. It is a stressful life event, that many reckon to be on par with the death of a family member.  With that being said, it is important that if you are going through a divorce, your conduct throughout the proceedings is important and it could have an impact on your divorce.  To behave poorly is a reflection not only on your character but also affects the actual outcome of your divorce.

In a divorce, your conduct in the course of proceedings can be taken into account by the judge, although generally speaking misconduct during the proceedings is more properly dealt with in an adverse application for costs against you.

What are some examples of “bad behaviour” and misconduct in a divorce? Wanton dissipation/reckless dissipation of assets is one form of misconduct.  In KMD v PIB [2011] HKFLR 351, the husband was excessively spending on his lifestyle as well as his hobby of flying helicopters and this was taken into account by the court, resulting in HK$1.2 million being “added back” from his 50% shares into the matrimonial pot for division.  In MKKWH v RKSH [2013] HKFLR 540, the husband maintained three (3) other families over a period of years and post-separation the wife sought to add back an equivalent sum of monies that her husband had spent on his other families.  In this case, the Court of Appeal refused the wife’s application to add back these funds on the basis that the funds had been received post-separation. In A v B [2017] 1 HKLRD 187, the court held that payments to a girlfriend of HK$1.2 million was “wanton” and “reckless” and “extravagant” in view of the marital assets and the standard of living, and the court therefore added back into the matrimonial pot, the non-marital spending.

Material non-disclosure is another form of misconduct in litigation such as monies being hidden.  In SANK v PGN [2011] HKFLR 390, the court considered whether a husband’s non-disclosure and refusal to mediate should result in a costs award to the wife.  The court concluded that “[t]here are many reasons which may affect the court in considering costs, such as culpability in the conduct of the litigation; for instance material non-disclosure of documents.”  Parties to a divorce have a duty of full and frank disclosure and by failing to disclose, the courts will take this misconduct into consideration.

Another form of misconduct is a refusal to attempt to settle. In LWF v LMF [2015] HKFC 146, the wife’s failure to respond and attempt to negotiate was a relevant factor for the husband being awarded costs.  The same misconduct label is also attached to litigants who refuse to provide evidence and/or participate in proceedings such as filing necessary paperwork and/or attending court hearings.  By refusing to participate, the court will have no choice but to see the case as one-sided and only make decisions based on the actual evidence in front of the court.

The courts in Hong Kong have a duty to have regard to the conduct of the parties to a marriage.  Negative marital conduct can be detailed in sworn affidavits filed with the court and will be considered by the court as a material factor in allowing the court to depart from equality (See LKW v DD). However, it is to be noted that if there is a departure from equality, the courts will look for “obvious and gross” misconduct for it to be taken into account.

Round-Up of Divorce News

Spring has arrived and what better way to ring in the Spring season than to summarize some of the few highlights from Divorce news stories circulating the Web.

Gender and Diversity In Divorce

South China Morning Post published a story about a decision by a Court in Beijing, China ruling that a Husband should compensate his Wife for housework she had done over a period of five (5) years.  The penalty? US$7,700.  Whilst there may be some housewives out there that might scoff at the idea that 5 years’ worth of housework was only worth a penalty of US$7,700, it is in fact an interesting ruling as it places a monetary value to chores and housework.

According to the SCMP article, there has been and continues to be a larger debate in China about the role of women who stay at home rather than enter the workforce.  This is the first ruling of its kind in China since a marriage law came into effect on January 1, 2021.  With the new law in place, it will be interesting to see how this plays out and how women (who continue to mostly be in charge of housework in China) will be compensated as they are now entitled to request relief from the Court.

Chasing After The Sun

In a recent Miami Herald article, it was declared that Florida is fertile ground for love such that divorced men are choosing the state of Florida as their primary destination to move to after a divorce.  Could it be that it is perhaps the sun and that sun-kissed glow attracting newly single men to flock to the sunny Florida state?

According to the article published by the Miami Herald, a study by MagnifyMoney confirms that Florida is welcoming nearly 2,581 men in the 12 months after a divorce.  The study states that the real reason men are choosing Florida over other states is due to job opportunities and career advancement along with the lower cost of living offered by Florida as an incentive to move.   Given the current state of affairs around the globe, it also would make sense for individuals to move where space is a luxury, as is outdoor recreation activities.  After Florida, men are choosing California, then North Carolina as their second and third best destination option.

If men are heading to Florida, then where are women heading? According to the study, women opt for Texas, followed by Florida, then Georgia.

Divorce and Daughters

In a new article published by The Economist, there are several studies conducted in America which confirm that having a female first-born does in fact increase the risk of the child’s parents divorcing, particularly in America and the Netherlands.   This study conducted by Jan Kabatek of the University of Melbourne in Australia and David Ribar of Georgia State University in Atlanta, Georgia, USA also states that “daughter-divorce” risk emerges only in a first-born girl’s teenage years.  According to the researchers, the primary reason behind the “daughter-divorce” risk is based upon the fact that parents quarrel more over the upbringing of teenager daughters versus teenage sons.

Covid-19, Depression and Divorce

In unsurprising news, the BBC reports that due to the Covid-19 pandemic, there has been a rise in depression and stress among parents resulting in fears, worry and anxiety.  This has led to frequent arguments among couples, thus placing additional stress on the relationship and opening the door to couples considering separation and divorce.  Demands faced by parents are becoming increasingly stressful as parents not only are dealing with Covid-19 related fears, but the resulting effects of Covid-19 including lockdowns, home schooling mixed in with the pressures of work commitments.

According to the report, Oxford researchers are now tracking both children and parents’ mental health throughout this crisis.

Those are some of the more interesting stories hitting the web.  Stay tuned for additional summaries of interesting stories circulating the web related to divorce.

 

 

Copyright © 2026 Hong Kong Divorce