離婚財產分配框架說明

以下五個步驟，用的是判詞本身的小標題（E.2 至 E.6）。這一套在第 192 章裡一隻字都找不到——條文說明法庭須顧及什麼，並沒有說明如何分配。以下內容不會因你在上方剔選了什麼而改變。

1. 1
   第一步：確定雙方的經濟資源

   判詞（小標題 E.2）：「The first step in the exercise is to ascertain the financial resources of each of the parties calculated as at the date of the hearing.」同一節就分類問題說明：「At this stage, the court need not attempt to distinguish between matrimonial and non-matrimonial property, that being an exercise best undertaken (if necessary) when considering distribution of the assets.」——即分類留待考慮分配時才處理。雙方須作全面而坦誠的披露，範圍及於境外；披露以哪一份法庭規定的財務披露表格、於何時提交，由法院規則訂明，本頁不作陳述。
2. 2
   第二步：評估雙方的經濟需要

   判詞（小標題 E.3）：「The next step is for the court to assess the parties’ financial needs.」法庭在此看第 7(1)(b) 至 (e) 條所列的事項——需要、負擔及責任、婚姻破裂前的生活水平、年齡與婚姻的持續期、身體或精神上的無能力——以及子女的需要。很多案件在這一步就已了結。
3. ·
   資源不足以超越需要時：分析通常止於「需要」

   這是判詞在第二步的原文（小標題 E.3）：「As has been noted, the section 7 exercise often stops at this point since the total resources may be insufficient to go beyond or even to meet both parties’ needs. If so, no room is left for the application of any sharing principle. Addressing the needs of say, the wife and children may immediately absorb more than half of the total assets. If so, ‘needs’ are, for want of any alternative, determinative.」（大意：由於總資源可能不足以超越、甚至不足以應付雙方的需要，第 7 條的分析往往在這一步就停下來；若然如此，分享原則便無用武之地，「需要」在別無選擇之下成為決定性因素——此中文係本站意譯。）判詞同一節亦指出，資產微薄時未必能「一刀兩斷」（clean break），或須改為作出定期付款的命令。
4. 3
   第三步：決定是否適用分享原則

   在應付雙方需要之後仍有餘額時，法庭才考慮分享原則。判詞（小標題 E.4）：「The point reached at this third stage of the section 7 exercise therefore involves the court deciding that the sharing principle applies and taking the view that the total assets should be divided equally between the parties unless there is good reason, capable of articulation, for departing from an equal division.」緊接的一句同樣屬於它：「It is worth emphasising, however, that as pointed out by Lord Nicholls, the court will often ultimately not arrive at an equal division.」
5. 4
   第四步：考慮有無充分理由偏離平等分配

   判詞（小標題 E.5）：「The fourth step therefore involves considering whether good reasons exist for departing from the principle of equal division.」理由從哪裡來？同一節直接作答：「The answer is to be found in the terms of section 7 and the implicit objective of a fair distribution of the assets. Any of the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (g) of section 7(1) may provide an appropriate reason, as may the ‘conduct of the parties’ and ‘all the circumstances’ referred to in section 7(1).」同一節的警告：「It cannot be over-emphasised that the matter is fact-specific and discretionary. The sharing principle must not be mechanistically applied.」
6. ·
   婚姻的持續期：沒有年期門檻

   第 7(1)(d) 條把婚姻的持續期列為法庭必須顧及的事項。判詞第 108 段（小標題 E.5.d 的第一段）：「While the sharing principle applies to both long and short marriages, it is clear that when a short marriage comes to an end, fairness may dictate that one party should exit the relationship with less than half of the total assets.」香港法律並無「結婚滿若干年才分到一半」這類年期門檻。確立該準繩的 [2010] HKCFA 70 本身就是一段 7 年、沒有子女的婚姻（第 133、134 段），終審法院維持對半分、駁回上訴（第 138 段）。持續期主要透過資產來源發生作用：非婚姻財產在短婚姻中較易被另眼看待，而婚姻愈長，這種區分的分量一般愈淡。
7. 5
   第五步：決定結果

   判詞第 131 段：「It is worth reiterating that, having gone through the processes I have compendiously called ‘Step 4’, the court is not bound to depart from equality in the division of the parties’ assets even if one or more of the factors considered are engaged on the facts. The weight to be given to such considerations is a matter of discretion for the court. Stepping back and looking at the overall impact of the factors found to be relevant, the court may decide that certain factors carry such weight that a departure from equality is called for. The decision is fact-specific and discretionary. But where there is a departure, the court should explain its basis since the articulation of reasons provides a useful check on the fairness of the outcome.」
8. ·
   關於「闡明理由」

   闡明理由並不是第六個步驟，也不是五步之中的一步。它出現在兩個位置：一是第三項原則本身——該準繩「should be departed from only for good, articulated reasons」；二是第五步結尾的一句——「where there is a departure, the court should explain its basis」。兩處都是對法庭的要求，不是當事人的選項。
9. ·
   已判案件中的偏離：要有具體理由

   在 [2022] HKCA 1223，分配由 50/50 調整至妻六丈四，理由是妻子年輕 10 年、返回尼泊爾後及名下物業變賣後的居住開支（第 10 段）。在 [2024] HKCA 406，受款一方獲資產池的 49.5%——判詞所講的那「1%」，量度的是兩邊份額之間的差距（49.5% 對 50.5%），成因是交易成本：超過 HK$300,000,000 的物業要出售，單是 1% 代理費已約 HK$3,000,000；上訴維持該分配。在 [2024] HKCA 335，想用「補償原則」進一步偏離的嘗試被拒。沒有具體理由，準繩不會移動。