TERENCE JOHN STOTT v. LARKS TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

TERENCE JOHN STOTT v. LARKS TRADING LTD AND ANOTHER

On the pleaded facts the court found the plaintiff to be a victim of fraud, suffering loss in excess of the pleaded amounts, and concluded that declarations that the defendants hold specified sums or assets derived from those sums on constructive or resulting trust were necessary to vindicate the plaintiff's proprietary claim and to enable tracing; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the declaratory/proprietary relief was granted notwithstanding the absence of a defence.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 1317
Parties
Plaintiff: Terence John Stott; 1st Defendant: Larks Trading Limited; 2nd Defendant: Somerset Asia Limited; 3rd Defendant: Yowin Trading Co, Limited
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
2 May 2019
Case Number
HCA17/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Action (fraud/proprietary Claim) / Application for Judgment (default Judgment Application); Hearing in Chambers
Outcome
Judgment entered for the plaintiff; declaratory and proprietary relief granted against the defendants in default.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Resulting Trust, Declaratory Relief, Default Judgment, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Tracing
Source Language
EN
Civil Equity Trusts Fraud Proprietary Remedies Constructive Trust Resulting Trust Declaratory Relief +3 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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Terence John Stott

Plaintiff

Larks Trading Limited

1st Defendant

Somerset Asia Limited

2nd Defendant

Yowin Trading Co, Limited

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action (fraud/proprietary Claim) / Application for Judgment (default Judgment Application); Hearing in Chambers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants hold specified funds or assets derived therefrom on constructive or resulting trust for the plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the court should make a declaratory order in the absence of a defended trial
  3. 3 Whether default judgment and proprietary relief are appropriate where fraud is pleaded and no defence filed

Ratio Decidendi

On the pleaded facts the court found the plaintiff to be a victim of fraud, suffering loss in excess of the pleaded amounts, and concluded that declarations that the defendants hold specified sums or assets derived from those sums on constructive or resulting trust were necessary to vindicate the plaintiff's proprietary claim and to enable tracing; accordingly judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the declaratory/proprietary relief was granted notwithstanding the absence of a defence.

Court Disposition

Judgment entered for the plaintiff; declaratory and proprietary relief granted against the defendants in default.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st defendant holds US$300,475 or assets derived therefrom on constructive or resulting trust for the plaintiff
  • Declaration that the 2nd defendant holds US$820,625 or assets derived therefrom on constructive or resulting trust for the plaintiff