許尊明 v. 歐振清及另一人

許尊明 v. 歐振清及另一人

The defendants failed to show that the plaintiff had agreed to any reserve or that they were entitled to the deductions claimed; the funds in the account were held on trust for all co-owners and the defendants did not discharge their duty to account or to justify deductions, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to his one-fifth share of the specified rents ($45,000) and one-fifth of the account balance as at 28 February 2005 ($38,686.53), with interest and costs on an indemnity basis.

Citation
許尊明 v. 歐振清及另一人
Parties
Plaintiff (executor of the Estate of Hui Chun Yuen): Mr. Hui; 1st Defendant: Mr. Au; 2nd Defendant: Mr. Yung
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 March 2008
Case Number
DCCJ6238/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil District Court (consolidated From Small Claims Tribunal) / Trial Judgment Handed Down
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff (Mr. Hui) for $45,000 and $38,686.53, with interest at the judgment rate; costs to be paid by the Defendants on an indemnity basis with a certificate for counsel, taxed if not agreed; order nisi to be made absolute after 14 days.
Legal Topics
Accounting by Trustees, Co Ownership/tenants in Common, Meeting Resolutions and Authority, Rent Distribution and Reserves, Costs and Interest
Source Language
EN
Trusts Property Law Landlord and Tenant Probate/executor Matters Civil Procedure Accounting by Trustees Co Ownership/tenants in Common Meeting Resolutions and Authority +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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr. Hui

Plaintiff (executor of the Estate of Hui Chun Yuen)

Mr. Au

1st Defendant

Mr. Yung

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil District Court (consolidated From Small Claims Tribunal) / Trial Judgment Handed Down

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff was bound by co-owners' resolutions to create a reserve fund or to keep rents on reserve
  2. 2 What amount is due to the plaintiff as one-fifth share of rent and of the Bank account balance
  3. 3 Whether the defendants discharged their duty as trustees to account and justify deductions claimed

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants failed to show that the plaintiff had agreed to any reserve or that they were entitled to the deductions claimed; the funds in the account were held on trust for all co-owners and the defendants did not discharge their duty to account or to justify deductions, therefore the plaintiff is entitled to his one-fifth share of the specified rents ($45,000) and one-fifth of the account balance as at 28 February 2005 ($38,686.53), with interest and costs on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff (Mr. Hui) for $45,000 and $38,686.53, with interest at the judgment rate; costs to be paid by the Defendants on an indemnity basis with a certificate for counsel, taxed if not agreed; order nisi to be made absolute after 14 days.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 45,000 (rent for July–September 2005)
  • Judgment for the Plaintiff in the sum of HKD 38,686.53 (one-fifth share of Account balance as at 28 February 2005)