PATRICK HUNG HING YUE v. HO YIN MAN AND OTHERS

PATRICK HUNG HING YUE v. HO YIN MAN AND OTHERS

The strike out application was refused because on the pleaded facts the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action: the pleadings allege the 2nd acted as nominee/agent receiving the consultancy fee on behalf of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the 4th has claims under the prior Tomlin order; constructive trust can be inferred from pleaded facts even if not expressly pleaded; disputed factual matters (including apportionment and alleged lien by the 3rd defendant) must be resolved at trial and do not justify striking out.

Citation
PATRICK HUNG HING YUE v. HO YIN MAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff: Patrick Hung Hing Yue; 1st Defendant: Ho Yin Man; 2nd Defendant: Stereo Limited; 3rd Defendant: Fook Tai Investment Company Limited; 4th Defendant: Yam Sam Leung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 August 2007
Case Number
HCA92/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trust/equitable Relief / Ruling on Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application to strike out refused as to the 2nd and 4th defendants
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Nominee/agency, Striking Out Application, Limitation Period, Declaration of Trust, Tomlin Order
Source Language
EN
Equity Trusts Contract Civil Procedure Constructive Trust Nominee/agency Striking Out Application Limitation Period +2 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 4 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Hung Hing Yue

Plaintiff

Ho Yin Man

1st Defendant

Stereo Limited

2nd Defendant

Fook Tai Investment Company Limited

3rd Defendant

Yam Sam Leung

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trust/equitable Relief / Ruling on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action against the 2nd and 4th defendants
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff has adequately pleaded a trust (including a constructive trust)
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim is frivolous or vexatious

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application was refused because on the pleaded facts the plaintiff has a reasonable cause of action: the pleadings allege the 2nd acted as nominee/agent receiving the consultancy fee on behalf of the plaintiff and 1st defendant and the 4th has claims under the prior Tomlin order; constructive trust can be inferred from pleaded facts even if not expressly pleaded; disputed factual matters (including apportionment and alleged lien by the 3rd defendant) must be resolved at trial and do not justify striking out.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused as to the 2nd and 4th defendants

Orders

  • Striking out application refused as to the 2nd defendant
  • Striking out application refused as to the 4th defendant