Shaphan Marwah recently acted for the Respondent Wife (W) in the case M, DA v M, VD (formerly known as KSH) [2026] HKFC 37 in obtaining legal costs provision (LCP) and the costs of her maintenance pending suit (MPS) summons. W also challenged the Petitioner Husband’s (H) financial disclosure for its inadequacy.

H opposed W’s application, alleging a deterioration in his financial situation.

W was entirely successful in her application. Having reference to H’s updated financial statement (Form E), the Court held that H failed to give full and frank financial disclosure for the reasons below:

1. H intermingled his personal assets and liabilities and expenses with those of his companies and their landed properties, which led to the surge in his alleged liabilities. Such intermingling makes it “virtually impossible” for any reasonable reader to have a rough idea of what H’s financial position was;

2. H included all his contingent liabilities under personal guarantees as if the same were immediately due and payable. As a seasoned entrepreneur being advised by a specialist family law firm, H must have understood that his contingent liabilities are merely potential;

3. H’s monthly payments of W’s MPS and prior financial provision proposal indicated his ability to pay; and

4. H failed to provide particulars in support of the alleged drop in his total income.

The Court awarded W costs, including the costs of her MPS summons, having considered W’s entirely successful application and H’s litigation misconduct, i.e., his failure to give full and frank disclosure.

This case highlights the importance of full and frank financial disclosure in family proceedings.

Judgment is available here.

For more details about Shaphan, please visit here.

This case summary is written by Zoe Cheung, Shaphan's current pupil.