LEE YUK TONG AND ANOTHER V. CHAN WAI HING AMY

LEE YUK TONG AND ANOTHER V. CHAN WAI HING AMY

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the Kanfield Property was funded by the parents and held to their benefit, that the alleged 1994 and 1998 promises did not evidence a common intention to confer an immediate beneficial interest nor was there sufficient detrimental reliance by the defendant, and accordingly the defendant has no beneficial interest; plaintiffs entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 229
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Lee Yuk Tong; 2nd Plaintiff: Lee Sin Yi Edith; Defendant: Chan Wai Hing Amy
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 February 2019
Case Number
DCCJ887/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (district Court) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Estoppel by Acquiescence, Irrevocable Licence/possessory Life Interest, Mesne Profits, Vacant Possession
Source Language
EN
Property Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Family Law Civil Procedure Common Intention Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Estoppel by Acquiescence Irrevocable Licence/possessory Life Interest +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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Yuk Tong

1st Plaintiff

Lee Sin Yi Edith

2nd Plaintiff

Chan Wai Hing Amy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (district Court) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant acquired beneficial ownership of the Kanfield Property by common intention constructive trust
  2. 2 Whether proprietary estoppel or estoppel by acquiescence gives the defendant an interest
  3. 3 Whether the defendant holds an irrevocable licence or possessory life interest

Ratio Decidendi

The court found on a balance of probabilities that the Kanfield Property was funded by the parents and held to their benefit, that the alleged 1994 and 1998 promises did not evidence a common intention to confer an immediate beneficial interest nor was there sufficient detrimental reliance by the defendant, and accordingly the defendant has no beneficial interest; plaintiffs entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim allowed; defendant's counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Defendant to deliver up vacant possession of Flat C, 6/F, Kanfield Mansion within 28 days of judgment dated 25 February 2019.
  • Defendant to pay mesne profits assessed at HKD 507,000.00 up to date of judgment and at HKD 13,000.00 per month thereafter until vacant possession is delivered.