By Felix W.H. Chan, Associate Professor Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong Wai-sum Chan, Professor Department of Finance, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

作者 陳偉漢副教授 香港大學法律學院 陳偉森教授 香港中文大學金融學系

34 www.hk-lawyer.org

•  May 2014

運用精算表處理婚姻財務糾紛：因應香港的情況運用達克斯伯里計算法

USING ACTUARIAL TABLES IN MATRIMONIAL FINANCIAL DISPUTES:Duxbury Calculation in the Hong Kong Context

34 www.hk-lawyer.org

May 2014 • PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務

www.hk-lawyer.org 35

When it comes to matrimonial financial provision in Hong Kong

divorce proceedings, the court should first consider all of the factors listed in paragraphs (a) to (g) of s.7(1) of the Matrimonial Proceedings and Property Ordinance (Cap. 192), which include the foreseeable future financial needs of each spouse, taking into account their ages and the standard of living enjoyed by the family before the divorce.

To convert the future income needs of a spouse into a present lump-sum, Hong Kong lawyers and judges have often relied upon the Duxbury calculation, a method that originated under English common law.

While the Duxbury calculation can be a useful tool, the UK Duxbury Actuarial Tables rely on statistical data and assumptions that do not reflect the realities of life in Hong Kong. As such, these authors argue that relying on the UK Duxbury Tables in Hong Kong divorce proceedings is doctrinally unsound. These authors propose that the Duxbury Calculation should be performed in Hong Kong in the context of Hong Kong’s statistical data, as well as its legal and fiscal structures.

Duxbury CalculationThe Duxbury calculation originated in Duxbury v Duxbury [1987] 1 FLR 7 and has been used to ascertain a capital sum sufficient to provide for the future income needs of a dependent spouse. According to the principles prevailing

at that time, the objective of financial awards was to satisfy the “reasonable requirements” of the party dependent on the financial provision.

Under the “reasonable requirements” principle, a Duxbury lump-sum was intended to provide for the financial needs of a dependent spouse but not more. It was calculated on the basis that the capital as well as the income would be used. It assumed that nothing would be left at the end of the dependent spouse’s life expectancy. However, the “reasonable requirements” principle has since been eschewed by the courts. It has been replaced by the “sharing principle”, which posits that property should be shared by striking a fair balance among different perspectives and claims

The Duxbury calculation remains a very valuable tool to judges and lawyers in Hong Kong, despite the adoption of the “sharing principle”. See LWK v DD [2010] HKCFA 70; Miller/McFarlane [2006] UKHL 24; White v White [2000] UKHL 54. For instance, the Duxbury calculation can be used to cross-check whether the quantum assessed under the “sharing principle” will be adequate to attend to the applicant’s financial needs. In addition, for the sake of ascertaining whether a clean-break settlement is feasible, the Duxbury calculation is often used as a guide when converting an existing periodical payments order into a present lump-sum value.

Despite the move from “reasonable requirements” to “sharing principle”, the same issue remains: how can the future income needs of an applicant most accurately be converted into a capital sum reflecting its present value?

A recent example illustrates the significance of the Duxbury calculation. As reported in the Hong Kong Court of Appeal judgment of TCWF v LKKS [2014] HKCA 10 (at [30]), the trial judge Saunders J. found that the total capital sum (based on the wife’s non-income and income needs) was HK$524.5 million. A substantial portion of the capital sum (HK$215 million), representing her income needs, was deduced from the Duxbury calculation.

More examples of Duxbury calculations in Hong Kong can be found in Table A of the appendix of this article.

Interactions between Personal Injury Claims and Matrimonial ProceedingsThe idea of forecasting the future for the sake of capitalising periodical payments is certainly not novel. In the English Court of Appeal in Wells v Wells [1997] 1 WLR 652, Thorpe LJ commented that “There does not seem to be a distinction of fundamental principle between providing for the future needs of plaintiffs in personal injury litigation and applicants in proceedings under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 or the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975.” (p. 686)

In actual practice, the Duxbury calculation is often performed in the UK by referring to one of the following sources:

• TheDuxbury Tables (Table 16 Duxbury Calculations, At A Glance) published by the UK Family Law Bar Association, or

• TheOgdenTables(Facts and Figures: Tables for the Calculation of Damages) published by Sweet and Maxwell.

❝ Divorce has become less about divorce and more about money. The process by which a divorce is obtained has become increasingly less significant. The parties now wage their warfare on the battlefield of finance. ❞ - Jackson’s Matrimonial Finance and Taxation

36 www.hk-lawyer.org

•  May 2014

“The theory is the same in either case,” according to Duckworth’s Matrimonial Property and Finance, “namely that a tangible value attaches to the receipt of a lump sum over and above what a periodical payments order would be worth in the ordinary course of receipt. That value is measured by the rate of return in excess of inflation which can be achieved if the lump sum is invested in a broad spread of securities on the stock market, or maybe in government index -linked bonds. (at C[22]).” Thus, while personal injury and matrimonial lawyers may live in two different worlds, the calculation methods and statistical data used to capitalise their client’s future financial needs are similar.

Why the UK Duxbury Tables Should be Replaced by the Hong Kong Actuarial TablesIt is doctrinally unsound to use the UK Duxbury Tables in Hong Kong because they are based on assumptions and data that do not reflect the reality of life in Hong Kong. Using them in Hong Kong may lead to fallacies which may render assessments unreliable.

First, the assumptions made in the UK Duxbury Tables are based on the statistics of the mortality rates and life expectancy in the UK. Hong Kong’s mortality experience is very different from that of the UK.

Second, the UK Capital Gains Tax and various types of UK income taxes are factored into the figures of the UK Duxbury Tables. The recipient of the lump sum is expected to invest it in a portfolio of bonds and equities to generate income yields. The interest and dividends received, together with the capital gains earned on sale of the bonds and shares, are all subject to a complicated scheme of UK taxes. Hong Kong does not have similar capital gains tax or income tax schemes.

Third, the UK Duxbury Tables assume that the recipient of the award receives,

or will become eligible to claim, the full UK State Retirement Pension upon the State Pension age. Hong Kong does not have any state retirement pension or national insurance contributions.

As a result of these differences, judges and lawyers in Hong Kong should immediately cease to use the UK Duxbury Tables. Any legal advice or proposed settlement prepared with the aid of the UK Duxbury Tables is likely to be challenged. The new point of reference should be either Table 1 (Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life: Males) or Table 2 (Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life: Females) contained in Personal Injury Tables Hong Kong 2013. Table 28 (Multipliers for pecuniary loss for term certain) is suitable for capitalising financial needs for a fixed term, not throughout the claimant’s life expectancy. The figures in Table 1 and Table 2 are based on the following statistical data, without regard to any tax or pension issues which are irrelevant in Hong Kong:

• Hong Kong Life Tables 2006–2041, Demographic Statistics Section, Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong SAR Government; and

• The Hong Kong Population Projections 2012–2041, Demographic Statistics Section, Census and Statistics, Hong Kong SAR Government.

Why the UK Discount Rate should also be Replaced by the Hong Kong Discount Rate(s) The discount rate is the rate of return exceeding inflation, which can be achieved if the lump sum is invested in a portfolio of bonds and securities on the stock market.

For matrimonial proceedings, the Hong Kong Duxbury discount rate is 4.25% per annum, which was set by Justice Hartmann a decade ago in F v F [2003]

HKCFI 111. The rate reflected the UK industry standard established in 1995.

In the UK, the current Duxbury discount rate is 3.75% (At A Glance for 2013–2014), and is based on three underlying assumptions: the average income yield of 3%, the average capital growth of 3.75%, and the average inflation of 3%.

For personal injury claims in Hong Kong, in Chan Pak Ting (No.2) [2013] HKCFI 179, Bharwaney J. departed from the conventional discount rate of 4.5% (set by the House of Lords in Cookson v Knowles [1979] AC 556; endorsed by the Hong Kong Court of Appeal in Chan Pui Ki [1996] 2 HKC 565). Having examined Hong Kong’s economic data, Bharwaney J. set 3 different discount rates, reflecting the investment choices of each class of investors as driven by their specific needs and goals. For needs exceeding 10 years, he set a discount rate of 2.5% by taking an “average” portfolio of:

• 10%intimedeposits;

• 70%inhighqualitybonds;and

• 20%inhighqualityblue-chipsstock.

It is not advocated here that the same discount rate of 2.5% be directly applied to Duxbury calculations in Hong Kong. Bharwaney J. explained clearly that the courts must not be slaves to the actuarial tables. The tables only take into account mortality, but not other special factors in particular cases. Nevertheless, given the similarities between the capitalisation methods used in personal injury and matrimonial proceedings, the legal reasoning applied in Chan Pak Ting in determining the discount rates can serve as a persuasive precedent on setting the appropriate discount rate(s) to cater for different levels of income needs and investment risks in matrimonial disputes.

Tables B, C and D in the appendix of this article illustrate the impacts of the choice of different discount rates on the

May 2014 • PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務

www.hk-lawyer.org 37

Table A – Examples of Duxbury Calculations in Hong Kong

Case Wife’s Age

Annual Income Needs (excluding her earnings)

Lump-SumValue

Multiplier

F v F [2003] HKCFI 111

41 $1.32 M $24.796 M 18.79*

WLK v TCM [2009] HKCFA 69

43 $660,000 $11.352 M 17.20*

Yiu Lin Tei[2012] HKCA 314

59 $480,000 $7.358 M 15.33**

Table B – Discount Rate of 4.25% (Table 2: Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life–Females)

Case Wife’s Age

Annual Income Needs Lump-SumValue

Multiplier

F v F 41 $1.32 M $27.19 M 20.60

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $13.40 M 20.31

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $8.155 M 16.99

Table C – Discount Rate of 3.75% (Table 2: Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life – Females)

Case Wife’s Age

Annual Income Needs Lump-SumValue

Multiplier

F v F 41 $1.32 M $29.54 M 22.38

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $14.53 M 22.02

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $8.68M 18.09

Table D – Discount Rate of 2.5% (Table 2: Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life–Females)

Case Wife’s Age

Annual Income Needs Lump-SumValue

Multiplier

F v F 41 $1.32 M $37.09 M 28.10

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $18.14 M 27.48

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $ 10.248M 21.35

lump sums assessed under the Duxbury calculations.

It is respectfully submitted that the UK Discount Rate bears little relevance to the prevailing economic conditions in Hong Kong. The mortality statistics and economic data of Hong Kong and the UK are very different, which is why the authors contend that the need for review of this data in Hong Kong is pressing.

In the UK, the discount rate was meticulously researched and put forward by the Duxbury Working Party, and judicially recognised as part of the English common law. The Working Party was comprised of a Government Actuary, forensic accountants and leading family law practitioners. Hong Kong should immediately start researching the key issues identified in this article. The single discount rate approach in the UK is not the only path for Hong Kong.

An alternative approach is to have a reasonable range of discount rates addressing different levels of income needs and investment risks that the recipient is capable of assuming. Table 1 (Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life–Males) and Table 2 (Multipliers for Pecuniary Loss for Life: Females) comprise discount rates from -2.0% to +5.0% at 0.5% intervals, offering a flexible range of parameters irrespective of the yardstick used in the process of dispute resolution.

ConclusionMediators, lawyers and judges should welcome a tool which cuts down a complicated task to a more manageable size. It is hoped that the move to a standard method of assessing future financial needs by using actuarial annuity tables that reflect the realities of life in Hong Kong will facilitate fair compromise as efficiently as possible, keeping with the spirit of the Civil Justice Reforms. n

* The multipliers are inferred from the annual income needs and the lump-sum values. The multipliers were not expressly mentioned in the judgment.

** The multiplier (21 x 0.73 = 15.33) was mentioned in paragraph 10 of the judgment. This case is not a matrimonial dispute. The Duxbury calculation was conducted for determining the reasonable financial provision under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependents) Ordinance, Cap. 481.

APPENDIX

❝離婚已經變得以金錢為主而離異的為次。達成離婚的過程日益不

重要。現時，財務成為雙方的角力場。❞-積遜婚姻財務和稅務

就香港離婚法律程序的婚姻經濟給

養來說，法庭會先考慮《婚姻法

律程序與財產條例（香港法例第 192

章）第7(1)(a) 至 (g) 條列出的所有因素

，包括每名配在可預見的將來的經濟需

要，考慮到其年齡及在離婚前家庭可享有

的生活水準。

香港的律師和法官將配偶的未來入息需要

化為現時整筆款項時，往往依賴源自英國

普通法的達克斯伯里計算法。

雖然達克斯伯里計算法可以是有用的工

具，但英國達克斯伯里計算法依賴的統計

數據和假設不能反映香港生活實況。因

此，筆者指在香港的離婚法律程序依賴達

克斯伯里計算法失去意義。筆者建議因應

香港的統計數據以及香港的法律和財政結

構運用達克斯伯里計算法。

達克斯伯里計算法

達 克 斯 伯 里 計 算 法 源 自 D u x b u r y

v Duxbury [1987] 1 FLR 7案，此計算法

是用以確定一筆本金是否足夠滿足受供養

的配偶在未來的入息需要。根據當時適用

的原則，經濟判給的目的是滿足依靠經濟

給養的一方的「合理要求」。

根據「合理要求」的原則，達克斯伯里整

筆款項是旨在僅滿足受供養的配偶的經濟

需要。計算基礎是該本金和收入會動用。

計算時是假設受供養配偶壽命結束之時沒

有留下分文。然而，法庭自此便規避「合

理要求」原則。該原則被「分取原則」取

代。「分取原則」是假設公平地在不同觀

點和聲稱之間取得平衡來分取。

達克斯伯里計算法儘管採用「分取原

則」，但對香港的法官和律師來說依然

是非常有價值的工具。參閱 LWK v DD

[2010] HKCFA 70；Miller/McFarlane

[2006] UKHL 24；White v White

[2000] UKHL 54。例如，達克斯伯里

計算法可以用來覆核以「分取原則」評

估的數額是否足夠照顧申請人的經濟需

要。另外，為了確定釐清權利責任解決

方法是否可行，在將現行定期付款令轉

為現時整筆款項價值時往往會採用達克

斯伯里 計算法為指引。

儘管將「合理要求」轉為「分取原則」，

但問題依舊：如何將申請人的未來入息

需要準確地轉為可反映現行價值的本金﹖

最近一個例子顯示了達克斯伯里計算法的

重要性。據報的香港上訴法庭案件TCWF

v LKKS [2014] HKCA 10 (at [30])判

決，原審法官辛達誠裁斷總本金（根據該

38 www.hk-lawyer.org

•  May 2014

妻子的非入息需要和入息需要計算）為港

幣5.245億元。本金中代表她的入息需要

的很大部分金額（港幣 2.15 億元）是運

用達克斯伯里計算法推斷。

本文件附件的表A提供更多在香港運用達

克斯伯里計算法的例子。

人身傷害申索和婚姻法律程序之

間的互動

為了計算定期付款而預測未來絕對不是

新的構思。在英國上訴法庭案件 Wells v

Wells [1997] 1 WLR 652中，上訴法院法

官科普 (Thorpe) 指「在人身傷害訴訟和

根據《1973年婚姻案由法令》或《1975

年繼承（給養家庭及受供養人）法令》滿

足原告人的未來需要所依據的原則似乎沒

有分別。」（第 686 頁）

實際運用時，達克斯伯里 計算法在英國

運用時往往參考以下其中一項資料：

• 英國家庭法大律師公會出版的The

Duxbury Tables (Table 16 Duxbury

Calculations, At A Glance) ，或

• Sweet and Maxwell 出版的 The Ogden

Tables (Facts and Figures: Tables for

the Calculation of Damages) 。

根據《Duckwo r t h’s Ma t r imon i a l

Property and Finance》一書，「兩者的

理論都是一樣，就是在收款的正常過程

中，收取整筆款項的有形價值是高於定期

付款令的所值。該價值是以回報率高於通

脹來衡量。倘將整筆款項投資在股票市場

的多種不同股票或政府指數掛鉤債券，便

能達到此回報率。（at C[22]）。」 因

此，雖然人身傷害訴訟律師和婚姻訴訟律

師活在兩個不同的世界，但用以計算其委

託人的未來經濟需要的方法和統計資料卻

相同。

為何應該以香港精算表取代英國

達克斯伯里表﹖

在香港運用達克斯伯里表失去意義，因為

達克斯伯里表賴以為基礎的假設和數據不

能反映香港生活的實際情況。在香港運用

達克斯伯里表可能會導致錯誤，令評估不

可靠。

第一， 英國達克斯伯里表的假設是基據

英國的死亡率和預期壽命訂立。香港的死

亡率紀錄跟英國的死亡率紀錄很不相同。

第二，英國的資本利得稅和各類入息稅

都被列為英國達克斯伯里 表作為計算因

素。預期整筆款項收款人會將該款項投資

於債券和股票投資組合，藉以產生入息回

報。收取的利息和股息再加上出售債券和

股票賺取的資本利得，全部被列入英國複

雜的稅務計劃內。香港沒有類似的資本利

得稅或入息稅計劃。

第三，英國達克斯伯里 表是假設判給付

款的收款人在達到國家長俸年齡後，會

收取或會有權申領悉數英國國家退休長

俸。香港沒有國家退休長俸或國家保險供

款。.

有鑑於這些分別，香港的法官和律師應該

立刻停止採用英國的達克斯伯里表。任

何借助英國達克斯伯里表的法律意見或

建議解決都可能會受到質疑。《Personal

Injury Tables Hong Kong 2013》（2013

年香港人身傷害資料表）一書內的表 1（

永久金錢損失乘數方法： 男性）或表 2

（永久金錢損失乘數方法： 女性）應該

可以作為新的參考觀點。表28（確實時

間金錢損失乘數方法）適合用以計算固定

期間而不是申索人在有生之年的經濟需

要。表1和表2的數字是根據以下統計資

料計算，不管任何跟香港無關的稅務或長

俸問題：

• 香港特別行政區政府統計處人口統計

組出版的《香港人口生命表2006–

2041》。

• 香港特別行政區政府統計處人口統

計組出版的《香港人口推算2012–

2041》。

為何也應以香港的貼現率（一項

或多項）取代英國的貼現率﹖

貼現率是高於通脹的回報率。倘將整筆款

項投資在股票市場的債券和股票投資組

合，便能達到此回報率。

婚姻法律程序方面，香港的達克斯伯里貼

現率是每年 4.25%，這是由夏正民法官

十年前在F v F [2003] HKCFI 111 案中

訂定的。該貼現率反映英國在 1995 年制

定的行業標準。

英國的現行達克斯伯里貼現率是 3.75%

（《At A Glance for 2013-2014》），

這是以三項相關假設為基礎的：平均入息

回報率是3%、平均資本增長率是 3.75%

、平均通脹率是 3%。

香港的人身傷害申索方面，在 Chan Pak

Ting (No.2) [2013] HKCFI 179一案，

包華禮法官不跟從傳統的貼現率 4.5%

（由英國上議院在 Cookson v Knowles

[1979] AC 556一案訂定； 由香港上訴

庭在 Chan Pui Ki [1996] 2 HKC 565 一

案中通過。） 包華禮法官研究過香港的

經濟數據後，訂定了三個不同的貼現率，

反映每類投資者按個別需要和目標作出的

不同的投資選擇。至於十年以上的需要，

他考慮以下「一般」投資組合後將貼現率

定為 2.5%：

• 10% 作為定期儲蓄；

• 70% 投資於優質債券；及

• 20% 投資於優質藍籌股。

並非在此主張在香港運用達克斯伯里計算

法時同樣直接應用 2.5% 貼現率。包華

禮法官清楚說明法庭不得成為精算表的奴

隸。精算表只考慮死亡率，並沒有考慮個

別案例的特殊因素。不管怎樣，有鑑於人

身傷害和婚姻法律程序採用的計算方法類

似，因此 Chan Pak Ting 一案用以釐定

貼現率的法律理據，可以作為訂定適用貼

現率（一項或多項）以滿足婚姻糾紛的不

同入息需要和投資風險的具說服力先例。

本文件附件中的表 B、表 C 及表 D 顯示

不同的貼現率選擇對根據達克斯伯里 計

算法評估的整筆款項構成的影響。

謹此表明，英國的貼現率跟香港當前的經

濟狀況關係不大。由於香港和英國的死亡

率統計資料和經濟數據非常不同，因此作

May 2014 • PROFESSIONAL PRACTICE 專業實務

www.hk-lawyer.org 39

表 A – 在香港運用達克斯伯里計算法的例子

個 案妻子的年齡

年入息需要 （不包括她的收入）

整筆款項價值

Multiplier

F v F [2003] HKCFI 111

41 $1.32 M $24.796 M 18.79*

WLK v TCM [2009] HKCFA 69

43 $660,000 $11.352 M 17.20*

Yiu Lin Tei[2012] HKCA 314

59 $480,000 $7.358 M 15.33**

表 B — 貼現率 4.25%（表 2： 永久金錢損失乘數方法 — 女性）

個 案妻子的年齡

年入息需要 整筆款項

價值 乘數方法

F v F 41 $1.32 M $27.19 M 20.60

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $13.40 M 20.31

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $8.155 M 16.99

表 C — 貼現率 3.75%（表 2： 永久金錢損失乘數方法 — 女性）

個 案妻子的年齡

Annual Income Needs 整筆款項

價值 乘數方法

F v F 41 $1.32 M $29.54 M 22.38

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $14.53 M 22.02

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $8.68M 18.09

表 D — 貼現率 2.5%（表 2： 永久金錢損失乘數方法 — 女性）

Case妻子的年齡

年入息需要 整筆款項

價值 乘數方法

F v F 41 $1.32 M $37.09 M 28.10

WLK v TCM 43 $660,000 $18.14 M 27.48

Yiu Lin Tei 59 $480,000 $ 10.248M 21.35

* 乘數方法推斷自每年入息需要和整筆款項價值。乘數方法並無在判詞中明確提述。

** 乘數方法 (21 x 0.73 = 15.33) 在判詞第 10 段有明確提述。這宗個案不是婚姻糾紛。運用達克斯伯里

計算法釐定《繼承（給養家庭及受供養人）法令》（香港法例第 481 章）規定的合理經濟給養。

附件定者認為香港檢視這些資料是刻不容緩

的。

在英國，訂定貼現率是經過謹慎研究，並

由達克斯伯里工作小組提交，在司法上獲

認可為英國普通法的一部分。工作小組由

一位政府精算師、多位法務會計師和多位

具領導地位的家庭法律師組成。香港應該

立刻就本文件指出的主要問題展開研究。

英國單一貼現率的做法不是香港唯一可走

的路。

另一種做法是訂立數量合理的貼現率，

以滿足不同水平的入息需要和收款人能

夠假設的投資風險。表1（永久金錢損失

乘數方法 — 男性）及表2（永久金錢損

失乘數方法 — 女性）包括從 -2.0% 至

+5.0% 的貼現率，每個之間相差 0.5%

，不管解決糾紛採用什麼準則都能藉此提

供靈活的參數。

結論

調解人、律師和法官應該會歡迎一種將工

作化繁為簡的工具。希望藉著採用能反映

香港生活實況的精算年金表而轉為採用標

準方法，評估未來的經濟需要可以盡快及

盡量低成本作出公平折中，以配合民事司

法制度改革的精神。 n

40 www.hk-lawyer.org

•  May 2014