FU LAM LAM v. FU TING TING

FU LAM LAM v. FU TING TING

On the evidence the court accepted the Defendant's account that in late 2002/early 2003 the parties formed a common intention that beneficial ownership would reflect respective contributions and the Defendant thereafter acted to her detriment by making the bulk of mortgage repayments; that common intention gave rise to a constructive trust; Defendant holds 79.6% and Plaintiff 20.4% of the beneficial interest; the HK$730,000 was a loan from Mr Lee repaid by Defendant; the HK$54,000 payment was not recoverable by restitution; appropriate relief is a buy‑out/transfer under Partition Ordinance with costs to Defendant.

Citation
[2025] HKDC 474
Parties
Plaintiff: FU LAM LAM; Defendant: FU TING TING
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2025
Case Number
DCMP3116/2021
Procedural Posture
Partition/beneficial Ownership Dispute / Judgment (district Court Trial)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim largely allowed establishing a common intention constructive trust and awarding Defendant 79.6% beneficial interest and Plaintiff 20.4%.
Legal Topics
Common Intention Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Partition Ordinance (orders for Sale), Severance of Joint Tenancy, Restitution (unjust Enrichment), Evidence and Witness Credibility
Source Language
EN
Property Law Trusts and Equity Family/domestic Law Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Common Intention Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Partition Ordinance (orders for Sale) +3 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

FU LAM LAM

Plaintiff

FU TING TING

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Partition/beneficial Ownership Dispute / Judgment (district Court Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether beneficial ownership is equal or proportionate (79.6% v 20.4%)
  2. 2 Whether a common intention constructive trust arose post-acquisition
  3. 3 Whether a resulting trust arises from initial contributions

Ratio Decidendi

On the evidence the court accepted the Defendant's account that in late 2002/early 2003 the parties formed a common intention that beneficial ownership would reflect respective contributions and the Defendant thereafter acted to her detriment by making the bulk of mortgage repayments; that common intention gave rise to a constructive trust; Defendant holds 79.6% and Plaintiff 20.4% of the beneficial interest; the HK$730,000 was a loan from Mr Lee repaid by Defendant; the HK$54,000 payment was not recoverable by restitution; appropriate relief is a buy‑out/transfer under Partition Ordinance with costs to Defendant.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim largely allowed establishing a common intention constructive trust and awarding Defendant 79.6% beneficial interest and Plaintiff 20.4%.

Orders

  • Declaration that 79.6% of the beneficial interest, rights and title in the Property are held on trust for the Defendant and 20.4% for the Plaintiff
  • Upon acceptance of Defendant's undertaking an order that the Plaintiff shall convey, transfer and/or assign her 20.4% interest in the Property to the Defendant at prevailing market value