CHIK CHI SHING v. CHEUNG KUI YIN

CHIK CHI SHING v. CHEUNG KUI YIN

The disputed pleas were plainly irrelevant to the core issues because they concerned transactions outside the relevant 1992/1993 timeframe, involved non-parties and did not bear on who paid the deposit or the existence of the Agreement; the time-bar defence was irrelevant as the Plaintiff did not seek repayment of the Loan; accordingly the Master’s strike-out was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 2520
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): CHIK CHI SHING; Defendant (appellant): CHEUNG KUI YIN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
30 August 2021
Case Number
HCA2294/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trusts/property (breach of Trust) / Appeal (rehearing) Against Master's Strike Out Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; Master’s strike-out of the disputed pleas upheld
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Strike Out, Abuse of Process, Limitation/time Bar
Source Language
EN
Equity Trusts Property Civil Procedure Succession Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Strike Out +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHIK CHI SHING

Plaintiff (respondent)

CHEUNG KUI YIN

Defendant (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Trusts/property (breach of Trust) / Appeal (rehearing) Against Master's Strike Out Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the oral Agreement existed
  2. 2 Whether the Deceased intended at completion in 1993 to treat the Couple as beneficial owners
  3. 3 Who paid the deposit in 1992/1993

Ratio Decidendi

The disputed pleas were plainly irrelevant to the core issues because they concerned transactions outside the relevant 1992/1993 timeframe, involved non-parties and did not bear on who paid the deposit or the existence of the Agreement; the time-bar defence was irrelevant as the Plaintiff did not seek repayment of the Loan; accordingly the Master’s strike-out was correct and the appeal is dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; Master’s strike-out of the disputed pleas upheld

Orders

  • Disputed pleas in the amended defence and counterclaim struck out as irrelevant
  • Appeal dismissed