LO MAN YAU v. CHIU SUNG FAI AND ANOTHER

LO MAN YAU v. CHIU SUNG FAI AND ANOTHER

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable; the trial judge correctly found on the facts that the 1st defendant rebutted the presumption that the company held the beneficial interest and held a 30.77% beneficial interest under a resulting trust based on his contributions...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] HKDC 1489
Parties
Plaintiff: Lo Man Yau; 1st Defendant: Chiu Sung Fai; 2nd Defendant: All occupiers of Flat B7 and B8 on 3rd Floor, Tung Lee Building, Nos 1C,1D,1E,1F,1G,1H,1J and 1K Water Street, Nos 1-15 On Ning Lane, Hong Kong
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 November 2019
Case Number
DCCJ2516/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Action Possession, Declaration of Beneficial Ownership and Mesne Profits / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment (post Judgment)
Outcome
Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Rebuttable Presumption of Company Ownership, Beneficial Ownership, Burden of Proof, Admissibility and Weight of Contemporaneous Statements, Leave to Appeal Reasonable Prospect of Success
Source Language
en
Property Trusts and Equity Civil Procedure Appeal Resulting Trust Rebuttable Presumption of Company Ownership Beneficial Ownership Burden of Proof +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lo Man Yau

Plaintiff

Chiu Sung Fai

1st Defendant

All occupiers of Flat B7 and B8 on 3rd Floor, Tung Lee Building, Nos 1C,1D,1E,1F,1G,1H,1J and 1K Water Street, Nos 1-15 On Ning Lane, Hong Kong

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action Possession, Declaration of Beneficial Ownership and Mesne Profits / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Judgment (post Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1st defendant rebutted the presumption that both legal and beneficial title vested in the company (South Sea) given his monetary contributions
  2. 2 Whether the sums paid by the 1st defendant were loans or evidenced an intention to acquire a beneficial interest
  3. 3 Whether family meetings and contemporaneous statements from 2009 were admissible and probative of intention at the time of purchase

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed grounds were not reasonably arguable; the trial judge correctly found on the facts that the 1st defendant rebutted the presumption that the company held the beneficial interest and held a 30.77% beneficial interest under a resulting trust based on his contributions and contemporaneous evidence, and there was no other reason in the interests of justice to grant leave.

Court Disposition

Summons for leave to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summons for leave to appeal dismissed
  • Costs order nisi: plaintiff to pay the 1st defendant's costs to be taxed if not agreed with certificate of counsel; the 1st defendant's own costs to be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations