CHENG FU WAN AND ANOTHER v. CHENG LOK YEE

CHENG FU WAN AND ANOTHER v. CHENG LOK YEE

The Court rejected the asserted common intention and resulting trust because contemporaneous conduct and documents contradicted the plaintiffs' case: the Defendant retained title deeds, discharged the mortgage himself, there was no contemporaneous discussion of ownership or practical terms, the 1987 purchase/assurance evidence was inherently implausible, and the plaintiffs' subsequent conduct was inconsistent with ownership. Accordingly the plaintiffs' proprietary claim failed and the defendant was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 1881
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Cheng Fu Wan; 2nd Plaintiff: Cheng Nap Quen; Defendant: Cheng Lok Yee
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 July 2021
Case Number
HCA1532/2018
Procedural Posture
Beneficial Ownership and Possession Dispute (hos Flat) / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and mesne profits allowed
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Beneficial Ownership, Mesne Profits, Vacant Possession, Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Property Law Trusts and Equity Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Common Intention Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Beneficial Ownership Mesne Profits +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 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheng Fu Wan

1st Plaintiff

Cheng Nap Quen

2nd Plaintiff

Cheng Lok Yee

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Beneficial Ownership and Possession Dispute (hos Flat) / Judgment at Trial (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st Plaintiff acquired a 5/6 beneficial interest in the Property by common intention constructive trust or resulting trust
  2. 2 Whether representations/assurances were made that created proprietary rights
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Plaintiff had a right to occupy the Property and whether mesne profits and possession should be ordered

Ratio Decidendi

The Court rejected the asserted common intention and resulting trust because contemporaneous conduct and documents contradicted the plaintiffs' case: the Defendant retained title deeds, discharged the mortgage himself, there was no contemporaneous discussion of ownership or practical terms, the 1987 purchase/assurance evidence was inherently implausible, and the plaintiffs' subsequent conduct was inconsistent with ownership. Accordingly the plaintiffs' proprietary claim failed and the defendant was entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim for vacant possession and mesne profits allowed

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claims dismissed
  • 2nd Plaintiff to deliver up vacant possession of the Property to the Defendant within 14 days