Lord Sales, Deputy President of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, delivered the latest lecture in the HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture Series on 24 September 2026.

The Role of Equity in the Law of Contract

”, the lecture addressed the distinct moral foundations of contract law and Equity, and how the two interact. The opening remarks were delivered by Professor Hualing Fu, Dean of the HKU Faculty of Law, and 

Held at the University of Hong Kong, the event welcomed nearly 300 attendees including members of the judiciary, legal practitioners, professors, and law students. The Honourable Mr Justice Eugene Fung, Judge of the Court of First Instance of the High Court and a former member of Temple Chambers, moderated the lecture.

We extend our sincere thanks to our co-sponsor, The University of Hong Kong, to Lord Sales and our other speakers for their contributions, and to everyone who attended and supported the event.

 [2026] HKCA 1737, the Court of Appeal (CA) upheld an order requiring a husband to pay his wife HK$406,000 a month during divorce proceedings. Its judgment dated 28 September 2026 addresses how a prenuptial agreement (PNA) whose binding effect has not yet been determined might affect an application for maintenance pending suit (MPS).

The parties married in July 2019 after signing a PNA. It provided that, on the breakdown of their marriage, the parties would each retain its separate property and divide the matrimonial property equally.

 [2013] EWHC 4250 (Fam), the husband argued that, at the interlocutory stage, the Court should follow the terms of the PNA unless the wife could prove that her challenge on the PNA will likely succeed. The judge nonetheless ordered the husband to pay MPS. The husband appealed.

The CA dismissed the appeal. It held that:

(i) Properly construed, the PNA did not preclude the wife from claiming MPS. The PNA governed the final distribution of assets between the parties. An order for MPS did not upset that final distribution, because the final award for ancillary relief could be adjusted to account for MPS payments.

. In that case, the husband had offered to pay the wife MPS according to the terms of their PNA. The wife sought payment on terms that differed from what the PNA provided for. That is why the wife had to justify departing from the PNA at the interlocutory stage - which she failed to do.

(iii) If a party seeks to depart from a PNA at the interlocutory stage, it would have to justify the same. The Court will form a preliminary view on the PNA. If it is 

 valid, in line with the autonomy principle, the court should apply its terms as closely as practicable. But that does not mean the Court must give a PNA predominant weight at the interlocutory stage. It remains for the judge to decide what is reasonable and fair under s. 3 of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap 192) - including what weight to give to the PNA, being one factor, alongside other relevant circumstances.

, instructed by Rita Ku & Ser, for the respondent (petitioner).

Eugene Yim (now Eugene Yim SC) and Bonnie Y K Cheng (now 

), instructed by Hugill & Ip, for the appellant (respondent).

Members

Recruitment

Latest News

Prenuptial agreements and maintenance pending suit

Recent Judgments

Latest Events

Lord Sales delivers the 2026 HKU-Temple Chambers Law Lecture

PRACTICE AREAS

About

Members

Recruitment

What's New