TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS

The Statement of Claim was struck out because (1) the 2005 Appointment Deeds validly appointed Lau and New Horizon as beneficiaries (indoor management rule and evidence of authorised signatories), (2) therefore unanimous consent of all beneficiaries to terminate the Karen Trust was absent and Saunders v Vautier did not apply, and (3) clause 33 of the Trust Deed was valid and had been upheld by appellate authority so the challenge to it was an abuse of process; accordingly the SoC disclosed no reasonable cause and was frivolous/vexatious and bound to fail.

Citation
TAM MEI KAM AND OTHERS v. HSBC INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEE LTD AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Tam Mei Kam; 2nd Plaintiff: Mui Pak Ning Rusmund; 3rd Plaintiff: Mui Pak Wai; 1st Defendant: HSBC International Trustee Limited; 2nd Defendant: New Horizon Buddhist Association Limited; 3rd Defendant: Lau Kai, Eddie
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2015
Case Number
HCA1856/2014
Procedural Posture
Trust Litigation / Decision on Strike Out Applications (order 18 R 19; Order 12 R 8)
Legal Topics
Discretionary Trust, Termination of Trust, Trustee Duties and Disclosure, Appointment of Beneficiaries, Striking Out Pleadings, Rule in Saunders V Vautier, Proper Law of Trust
Source Language
EN
Trusts Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Equity Private International Law Discretionary Trust Termination of Trust Trustee Duties and Disclosure +4 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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tam Mei Kam

1st Plaintiff

Mui Pak Ning Rusmund

2nd Plaintiff

Mui Pak Wai

3rd Plaintiff

HSBC International Trustee Limited

1st Defendant

New Horizon Buddhist Association Limited

2nd Defendant

Lau Kai, Eddie

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Trust Litigation / Decision on Strike Out Applications (order 18 R 19; Order 12 R 8)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of 2005 appointments of additional beneficiaries
  2. 2 Whether unanimous consent of beneficiaries existed to terminate the discretionary trust
  3. 3 Validity and effect of clause 33 (information control) of the Trust Deed

Ratio Decidendi

The Statement of Claim was struck out because (1) the 2005 Appointment Deeds validly appointed Lau and New Horizon as beneficiaries (indoor management rule and evidence of authorised signatories), (2) therefore unanimous consent of all beneficiaries to terminate the Karen Trust was absent and Saunders v Vautier did not apply, and (3) clause 33 of the Trust Deed was valid and had been upheld by appellate authority so the challenge to it was an abuse of process; accordingly the SoC disclosed no reasonable cause and was frivolous/vexatious and bound to fail.