CWK v. CPL AND ANOTHER

CWK v. CPL AND ANOTHER

On the evidence the court inferred a common intention at the time of purchase that the legal owners held the Property on trust for the Father: the net sale proceeds of the Father's property funded the purchase, the Father provided regular and timely mortgage payments (often above required sums and borrowing to do so), resided at the Property and treated it as his home; therefore the Father is the sole beneficial owner and the Husband and Wife held the Property on trust for him.

Citation
[2023] HKFC 247
Parties
Petitioner: CWK; 1st Respondent: CPL; 2nd Respondent: Father
Court
Family Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
15 December 2023
Case Number
FCMC6562/2021
Procedural Posture
Matrimonial Causes (ancillary Relief / Beneficial Ownership) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (beneficial Ownership)
Outcome
2nd Respondent (Father) found to be sole beneficial owner; Petitioner and 1st Respondent held the Property on trust for the 2nd Respondent.
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Presumption of Advancement, Third Party Claims in Ancillary Relief, Trustee in Bankruptcy Consent, Locus Standi
Source Language
EN
Family Law Property Law Trusts Bankruptcy Law Common Intention Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Presumption of Advancement Third Party Claims in Ancillary Relief +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CWK

Petitioner

CPL

1st Respondent

Father

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Matrimonial Causes (ancillary Relief / Beneficial Ownership) / Judgment on Preliminary Issue (beneficial Ownership)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2nd Respondent (Father) is the beneficial owner of the Property
  2. 2 Whether a common intention constructive trust arose at the time of purchase
  3. 3 Whether the presumption of resulting trust applies

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court inferred a common intention at the time of purchase that the legal owners held the Property on trust for the Father: the net sale proceeds of the Father's property funded the purchase, the Father provided regular and timely mortgage payments (often above required sums and borrowing to do so), resided at the Property and treated it as his home; therefore the Father is the sole beneficial owner and the Husband and Wife held the Property on trust for him.

Court Disposition

2nd Respondent (Father) found to be sole beneficial owner; Petitioner and 1st Respondent held the Property on trust for the 2nd Respondent.

Orders

  • The 2nd Respondent was and is the sole beneficial owner of the Property notwithstanding that the Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were the registered legal owners.
  • The Petitioner and the 1st Respondent were holding the Property on trust for the 2nd Respondent at all material times.