MASS PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. WAN HON HUNG JOHNNY AND OTHERS

MASS PROFIT (HONG KONG) LTD v. WAN HON HUNG JOHNNY AND OTHERS

The court found plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Deceased funded the purchases and defendants failed to prove the Wan family/Father funded them; because objective documentary fund‑flow was absent and witness evidence was unreliable or incomplete, no resulting or constructive trusts were established and no declaratory title relief was granted. The court further found D7 did not assume the necessary responsibility nor have proven custody of company kits and so owed no actionable non‑contractual agency/fiduciary duties; finally, Pepson was established with the Deceased's agreement and Mass Profit failed to prove employment relationships or breaches by...

Citation
[2021] HKCFI 3710
Parties
Plaintiff (hca 65/2011): Wong Chak Wing; Plaintiff (joint Administratrix of the Estate of Wan Sing Hon): Wong Yuen Han Maggie; 1st Defendant (d1): Camelo Investment Limited; 2nd Defendant (d2): King Speed (Asia) Ltd; 3rd Defendant (d3): Smart Deal Co., Ltd; 4th Defendant (d4): Macro Sport Ltd; 5th Defendant (d5): Lucky Holdings Limited; 6th Defendant (d6): Multi Well (China) Ltd; 7th Defendant: Chui Sang Derek (Derek Chui); 8th Defendant (annulled): Master One Limited; 9th Defendant and 1st Defendant (hca 1390/2010): Wan Hon Hung Johnny; 10th Defendant and 2nd Defendant (hca 1390/2010): Wan Chui Kwan; Plaintiff (hca 1390/2010): Mass Profit (Hong Kong) Limited; 3rd Defendant (hca 1390/2010) (dissolved): Pepson Technology Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 December 2021
Case Number
HCA1390/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Actions (hca 65/2011 and HCA 1390/2010) Concerning Trusts, Landed Property Disputes, Company/agency and Employment Claims / Trial and Judgment in the High Court, Court of First Instance (trial Heard April 2021; Judgment Delivered 8 December 2021)
Outcome
All substantive claims and counterclaims in HCA 65/2011 and HCA 1390/2010 dismissed; no declarations as to beneficial ownership of the landed properties or WB Shop; no relief against D7; Mass Profit's claims dismissed; Johnny's counterclaim dismissed.
Legal Topics
Resulting Trust, Constructive Trust, Breach of Trust and Dishonest Assistance, Non Contractual Agency (hedley Byrne Principles), Assumption of Responsibility, Employee Status and Fiduciary Duties of Employees, Hearsay and S49 Evidence Ordinance, Discretionary Relief (declaratory Relief)
Source Language
EN
Trusts and Equitable Remedies Company Law Fiduciary Duties and Agency Property Law Employment Law Civil Evidence and Procedure Resulting Trust Constructive Trust +6 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Chak Wing

Plaintiff (hca 65/2011)

Wong Yuen Han Maggie

Plaintiff (joint Administratrix of the Estate of Wan Sing Hon)

Camelo Investment Limited

1st Defendant (d1)

King Speed (Asia) Ltd

2nd Defendant (d2)

Smart Deal Co., Ltd

3rd Defendant (d3)

Macro Sport Ltd

4th Defendant (d4)

Lucky Holdings Limited

5th Defendant (d5)

Multi Well (China) Ltd

6th Defendant (d6)

Chui Sang Derek (Derek Chui)

7th Defendant

Master One Limited

8th Defendant (annulled)

Wan Hon Hung Johnny

9th Defendant and 1st Defendant (hca 1390/2010)

Wan Chui Kwan

10th Defendant and 2nd Defendant (hca 1390/2010)

Mass Profit (Hong Kong) Limited

Plaintiff (hca 1390/2010)

Pepson Technology Limited

3rd Defendant (hca 1390/2010) (dissolved)

Procedural Posture

Civil Actions (hca 65/2011 and HCA 1390/2010) Concerning Trusts, Landed Property Disputes, Company/agency and Employment Claims / Trial and Judgment in the High Court, Court of First Instance (trial Heard April 2021; Judgment Delivered 8 December 2021)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the landed properties and WB Shop were purchased with the Deceased's personal funds or with funds of the Wan family/Father (Issue 1, Issues 4–5)
  2. 2 Whether companies D1–D6 hold the landed properties on resulting or constructive trust for the Estate or for the Wan family (Issue 2)
  3. 3 What declaratory relief should be granted (Issue 3)

Ratio Decidendi

The court found plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that the Deceased funded the purchases and defendants failed to prove the Wan family/Father funded them; because objective documentary fund‑flow was absent and witness evidence was unreliable or incomplete, no resulting or constructive trusts were established and no declaratory title relief was granted. The court further found D7 did not assume the necessary responsibility nor have proven custody of company kits and so owed no actionable non‑contractual agency/fiduciary duties; finally, Pepson was established with the Deceased's agreement and Mass Profit failed to prove employment relationships or breaches by...

Court Disposition

All substantive claims and counterclaims in HCA 65/2011 and HCA 1390/2010 dismissed; no declarations as to beneficial ownership of the landed properties or WB Shop; no relief against D7; Mass Profit's claims dismissed; Johnny's counterclaim dismissed.

Orders

  • HCA 65/2011: Plaintiff's claim dismissed against all defendants; counterclaims of D1, D3, D4, D5, Johnny and CK dismissed
  • HCA 1390/2010: Mass Profit's claim dismissed; Johnny's counterclaim dismissed