LONG SING UNION ENGINEERING LTD v. MA CHI KI aka KEITH MA AND ANOTHER
The court found on balance that Lee and Ma entered the JV Agreement (as varied) and formed the Company; LSP (through Ma) and Lee acted so as to create both an express trust and a common intention constructive trust such that LSP held the four Projects and all income derived from them on trust for the Company; Ma breached fiduciary duties in causing payments and attempting to divert benefits; defendants must account for all income subject to deduction of Direct Expenses, 50% of Legitimate Indirect Expenses for the Relevant Period and any profit tax, and must pay out the stakeholder funds and provide particulars for the account.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCFI 2833
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Long Sing Union Engineering Limited; 1st Defendant: Ma Chi Ki (also known as Keith Ma); 2nd Defendant: Long Sing Plumbing Limited
- Court
- Court of First Instance
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 2 November 2023
- Case Number
- HCA1873/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Statutory Derivative Action (companies Ordinance) / Judgment (trial)
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Plaintiff on the principal issues: declarations granted that the Projects and proceeds were held on trust for the Company; account ordered; equitable remedies against Ma and LSP granted in respect of fiduciary breach and breach of trust.
- Legal Topics
- Constructive Trust, Express Trust, Common Intention Constructive Trust, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Knowing Receipt, Accounting and Inquiry, Statutory Derivative Action, Joint Venture Agreement, Overpayments, Equitable Compensation
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Long Sing Union Engineering Limited
Plaintiff
Ma Chi Ki (also known as Keith Ma)
1st Defendant
Long Sing Plumbing Limited
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Statutory Derivative Action (companies Ordinance) / Judgment (trial)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether Lee and Ma reached the alleged JV Agreement and its December 2014 variation
- 2 Whether the Company was formed pursuant to that JV Agreement
- 3 Whether payments into and out of the joint HSBC account were made pursuant to the JV Agreement/Arrangement or pursuant to alleged security agreements
Ratio Decidendi
The court found on balance that Lee and Ma entered the JV Agreement (as varied) and formed the Company; LSP (through Ma) and Lee acted so as to create both an express trust and a common intention constructive trust such that LSP held the four Projects and all income derived from them on trust for the Company; Ma breached fiduciary duties in causing payments and attempting to divert benefits; defendants must account for all income subject to deduction of Direct Expenses, 50% of Legitimate Indirect Expenses for the Relevant Period and any profit tax, and must pay out the stakeholder funds and provide particulars for the account.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Plaintiff on the principal issues: declarations granted that the Projects and proceeds were held on trust for the Company; account ordered; equitable remedies against Ma and LSP granted in respect of fiduciary breach and breach of trust.
Orders
- Declaration that the Projects and all benefits and income derived therefrom have been held by LSP on trust for the Company from the date of its incorporation
- Declaration that defendants are liable to account to the Company for all assets, income, profits, interest and other benefits derived from use of the amount equivalent to the Overpayments or the amount found due on account
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment