ROSE PALACE LTD v. JUNG CHRISTOPHER LAM AND ANOTHER

ROSE PALACE LTD v. JUNG CHRISTOPHER LAM AND ANOTHER

The court held that the solicitor's two statutory declarations, reinforced by Wu's long inaction (over 24 years), rebutted the presumption of resulting trust such that the plaintiff satisfied the title requisition; alternatively, even if the declarations were insufficient, any claim by Wu would be barred by s.7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance because the plaintiff was not a trustee within s.20(1)(b) prior to its purchase and the 12-year limitation had expired.

Citation
ROSE PALACE LTD v. JUNG CHRISTOPHER LAM AND ANOTHER
Parties
Vendor: Plaintiff (vendor); Purchasers: Defendants (purchasers)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 January 2013
Case Number
HCMP1976/2012
Procedural Posture
Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment (court of First Instance)
Outcome
Requisition based on Wu's payment of the deposit satisfactorily answered; declaration that presumption of resulting trust is rebutted and, alternatively, any claim by Wu would be time-barred; parties may proceed to completion.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Presumption of Resulting Trust, Rebuttal of Presumption, Limitation Periods, Title Requisition, Statutory Declarations as Evidence
Source Language
EN
Property Law Trusts and Equitable Remedies Limitation Law Conveyancing Resulting Trust Presumption of Resulting Trust Rebuttal of Presumption Limitation Periods +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff (vendor)

Vendor

Defendants (purchasers)

Purchasers

Procedural Posture

Vendor and Purchaser Summons / Judgment (court of First Instance)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a presumption of resulting trust arose from Wu's payment of half the deposit
  2. 2 Whether the solicitor's statutory declarations rebut the presumption of resulting trust
  3. 3 Whether any claim by Wu is barred by the Limitation Ordinance s.7(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the solicitor's two statutory declarations, reinforced by Wu's long inaction (over 24 years), rebutted the presumption of resulting trust such that the plaintiff satisfied the title requisition; alternatively, even if the declarations were insufficient, any claim by Wu would be barred by s.7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance because the plaintiff was not a trustee within s.20(1)(b) prior to its purchase and the 12-year limitation had expired.

Court Disposition

Requisition based on Wu's payment of the deposit satisfactorily answered; declaration that presumption of resulting trust is rebutted and, alternatively, any claim by Wu would be time-barred; parties may proceed to completion.

Orders

  • Declare that the presumption of resulting trust arising from Wu's payment of half the deposit on 12 September 1988 is rebutted
  • Alternatively declare that any claim by Wu arising from that presumption would have been barred by 12 September 2000 under Limitation Ordinance s.7(2)