1. Poon Lok To Otto (the “Husband”) and Kan Lai Kwan (the “Wife”) were married in 1968. The Husband became very successful with his business from the mid-1990s. Analogue Holdings Ltd (“Analogue”) was incorporated to be the holding company of his business. In July 1995, a discretionary trust based in Jersey was set up (the “Trust”). The Husband was the Settlor, Protector and a potential beneficiary. HSBC International Trustee Limited was the Trustee. The Husband settled 84.63% of the shares of Analogue in the Trust. 2. In February 2009, the Husband petitioned for divorce on the basis of two years’ separation. The Wife did not defend the proceedings. The decree nisi was pronounced in May 2009 and made absolute in September 2010. The Wife applied for ancillary relief. She argued that the equal sharing principle should be applied to the entire value of the Trust, not only to two-thirds of that amount (which the Husband contended for). She also claimed that they had been separated only since 2008. The Husband, on the other hand, claimed that they had been separated since 2001. This was relevant due to the substantial profits generated by Analogue after 2001. 3. To decide whether the Trust was a financial resource of the Husband, the Court of Final Appeal adopted the test of asking whether, if the Husband were to request the Trustee to advance the whole or part of the capital or income of the Trust to him, the Trustee would, on the balance of probabilities, be likely to do so. Considering the creation and terms of the Trust, the Husband’s letters of wishes, the nature of the Trust assets and previous distributions made by the Trustee, the Court held that there was clear evidence of the overwhelming likelihood that the Trustee would, if requested by the Husband, advance the whole or part of the capital or income of the Trust to him. Accordingly, the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal were wrong to hold that the matrimonial assets included only a two-thirds interest in the value of the Trust. The entire Trust fund should be regarded as a financial resource available to the Husband. 4. Disagreeing with the finding of the Court of First Instance that the Husband and the Wife separated in 2001, the Court of Final Appeal held that as a matter of fact their marriage continued until they finally separated in 2008. The Court of Final Appeal also disagreed with the finding of the Court of Appeal, based on the doctrine of estoppel, that they separated in 2007. Whether the Husband and the Wife had separated was a question of fact. The Court was subject to a statutory duty to have regard to all the circumstances of the case. It was not estopped from finding that the Husband and the Wife in fact separated in 2008. 5. On the question of whether there should be a departure from the equality principle, the Court of Final Appeal held that the increased profits of Analogue did not provide a ground for such a departure. Those profits arose out of the business which had been built up during the Husband’s and the Wife’s marriage, in respect of which the Wife could legitimately assert an unascertained share. 6. Accordingly, the Court of Final Appeal unanimously allowed the Wife’s appeal and dismissed the Husband’s appeal.