CHEUNG SAI LON v. CHEUNG SAI HA AND ANOTHER

CHEUNG SAI LON v. CHEUNG SAI HA AND ANOTHER

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed the asserted sums or that any common intention existed to give him beneficial interests in FF Shops or House 71/72; contemporaneous documents and conduct contradicted Plaintiff’s account and his credibility was undermined; accordingly legal title stood and no constructive or resulting trust arose, so all claims based on alleged trusts, breaches and tracing failed.

Citation
[2026] HKCFI 1150
Parties
Plaintiff: Cheung Sai Lon; 1st Defendant: Cheung Sai Ha; 2nd Defendant: Cheung Sai Ha and Cheung Sai Kuen as Executrixes of the estate of Cheung Hung Kwong, Deceased
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 February 2026
Case Number
HCA2218/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action – Trust and Property / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs ordered against Plaintiff (costs nisi).
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Knowing Receipt, Proprietary Tracing, Beneficial Ownership, Assessment of Credibility, Mense Profits
Source Language
EN
Trusts Property Equity Probate Family Law Restitution/unjust Enrichment Common Intention Constructive Trust Resulting Trust +6 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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cheung Sai Lon

Plaintiff

Cheung Sai Ha

1st Defendant

Cheung Sai Ha and Cheung Sai Kuen as Executrixes of the estate of Cheung Hung Kwong, Deceased

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action – Trust and Property / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Plaintiff contributed funds to acquire FF Shops and is beneficial owner; Whether there was a common intention between Father and Plaintiff that Plaintiff held beneficial interest in FF Shops; Whether Plaintiff funded acquisition and construction of House 71 and House 72 and is their beneficial owner; Whether Father breached fiduciary duties by selling FF Shops and transferring proceeds; Whether 1st Defendant knowingly received or assisted breach (knowing receipt/dishonest assistance); Whether alleged unauthorised withdrawals and missing rental constitute breaches and are recoverable; Calculation of mense profits

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed the asserted sums or that any common intention existed to give him beneficial interests in FF Shops or House 71/72; contemporaneous documents and conduct contradicted Plaintiff’s account and his credibility was undermined; accordingly legal title stood and no constructive or resulting trust arose, so all claims based on alleged trusts, breaches and tracing failed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed; costs ordered against Plaintiff (costs nisi).

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claims against the 1st and 2nd Defendants are dismissed
  • The 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaim is dismissed