ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS

On the evidence the court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the HK$2,000,000 was provided to Winnie upon trust for Eric or that the shares held in Winnie/MV entities were trust property for Eric; plaintiff's oral evidence was inconsistent, lacked contemporaneous documentary support and was contrary to inherent probabilities; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and costs orders were made as set out below.

Citation
ERIC EDWARD HOTUNG AND ANOTHER v. HO YUEN KI AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: Eric Edward Hotung; 2nd Plaintiff: Lare Sare Limited; 1st Defendant: Ho Yuen Ki; 2nd Defendant: Moon Valley Inc; 3rd Defendant: Mak Shun Ming Michael (also known as Michael Eric Alexander Bosman Hotung)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 September 2016
Case Number
HCA857/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust/property Dispute / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' action dismissed.
Legal Topics
Express Trust, Resulting Trust, Proprietary Interest in Shares, Laches, Security for Costs, Costs Allocation, Evidence and Credibility
Source Language
EN
Trusts Equity Property Civil Procedure Costs Express Trust Resulting Trust Proprietary Interest in Shares +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Eric Edward Hotung

1st Plaintiff

Lare Sare Limited

2nd Plaintiff

Ho Yuen Ki

1st Defendant

Moon Valley Inc

2nd Defendant

Mak Shun Ming Michael (also known as Michael Eric Alexander Bosman Hotung)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust/property Dispute / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the HK$2,000,000 payment from Eric to Winnie was held on trust for Eric
  2. 2 Whether shares in STDM and Shun Tak Shipping held in Winnie/MV entities are trust property
  3. 3 Whether there was an express, implied or resulting trust

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the HK$2,000,000 was provided to Winnie upon trust for Eric or that the shares held in Winnie/MV entities were trust property for Eric; plaintiff's oral evidence was inconsistent, lacked contemporaneous documentary support and was contrary to inherent probabilities; accordingly the plaintiffs' claim was dismissed and costs orders were made as set out below.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' action dismissed.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs to pay the costs of the 1st defendant (including live note expenses for hearings on 26, 27, 30 and 31 May 2016), to be taxed if not agreed
  • No order as to costs between the plaintiffs and the 2nd and 3rd defendants (order nisi)