LAM LAP KIN v. CHOY SI YIM (The Executor of the Estate of AU SIU LAU, Deceased) AND OTHERS

LAM LAP KIN v. CHOY SI YIM (The Executor of the Estate of AU SIU LAU, Deceased) AND OTHERS

The plaintiff's evidence, including the alleged 1993 promise and claimed payments, was not credible or sufficient; the deceased did not make the alleged promise; the plaintiff's contributions did not exceed 20% of the purchase price; therefore neither a constructive trust nor a presumed resulting trust was established and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, with the plaintiff remaining a 20% co-owner and responsible for related rates and management fees to that extent.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 503
Parties
Plaintiff: Lam Lap Kin; 1st Defendant: Choy Si Yim; 2nd Defendant: D2 (unnamed); 3rd Defendant: D3 (unnamed)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
12 March 2018
Case Number
HCA1320/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Property Dispute Trusts and Probate / Judgment After Trial at Court of First Instance
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Presumed Resulting Trust, Estoppel, Credibility Assessment, Costs Taxation, Declaration of Ownership
Source Language
EN
Equity Trusts Property Law Probate Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Presumed Resulting Trust Estoppel +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Lap Kin

Plaintiff

Choy Si Yim

1st Defendant

D2 (unnamed)

2nd Defendant

D3 (unnamed)

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Property Dispute Trusts and Probate / Judgment After Trial at Court of First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a common intention constructive trust arose from the deceased's alleged 1993 promise
  2. 2 Whether a presumed resulting trust arises from the plaintiff's alleged contributions to purchase and renovation
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's evidence of monetary contributions is credible and sufficient

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff's evidence, including the alleged 1993 promise and claimed payments, was not credible or sufficient; the deceased did not make the alleged promise; the plaintiff's contributions did not exceed 20% of the purchase price; therefore neither a constructive trust nor a presumed resulting trust was established and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, with the plaintiff remaining a 20% co-owner and responsible for related rates and management fees to that extent.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed
  • Order in terms of paragraph 1 of the 3rd defendant's re-re-re-amended defence and counterclaim