WANG SHULIANG v. PAN DAMING AND OTHERS

WANG SHULIANG v. PAN DAMING AND OTHERS

Court held that on strike‑out threshold the constructive trust and Quistclose trust claims against the 2nd Defendant were arguable and could survive strike‑out (leave to amend granted) because the pleaded facts could support actual or blind‑eye knowledge and proprietary claims and tracing/discovery are matters for trial; however the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims were struck out as time‑barred because the alleged fraudulent scheme could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before the limitation cut‑off.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 3363
Parties
Plaintiff: Wang Shuliang; 1st Defendant: Pan Daming; 2nd Defendant: Shing Chau Ching; 3rd Defendant: Lau Ko Fung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 November 2024
Case Number
HCA590/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Fraud and Proprietary Claims / Interlocutory Strike‑out and Re‑amendment Hearing (application to Amend and Strike‑out)
Outcome
Reamendment allowed in part: leave granted to plaintiff to amend to plead constructive trust and Quistclose trust against the 2nd Defendant; conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims struck out as time‑barred; ASOC struck out (conspiracy) without dismissing the action against 2nd Defendant; directions given for draft...
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Quistclose Trust, Knowing Receipt/knowledge, Blind‑eye Knowledge, Unjust Enrichment (mistake), Conspiracy to Injure by Unlawful Means, Strike‑out Threshold, Limitation (s26 Limitation Ordinance)
Source Language
EN
Trusts Equity Civil Procedure Limitation Unjust Enrichment Fraud Conspiracy Constructive Trust +7 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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wang Shuliang

Plaintiff

Pan Daming

1st Defendant

Shing Chau Ching

2nd Defendant

Lau Ko Fung

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Fraud and Proprietary Claims / Interlocutory Strike‑out and Re‑amendment Hearing (application to Amend and Strike‑out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the constructive trust claim against the 2nd Defendant discloses a reasonable cause of action and can survive strike‑out
  2. 2 Whether a Quistclose trust arose and can be pleaded against the 2nd Defendant
  3. 3 Whether unjust enrichment and conspiracy claims are time‑barred and demurrable

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that on strike‑out threshold the constructive trust and Quistclose trust claims against the 2nd Defendant were arguable and could survive strike‑out (leave to amend granted) because the pleaded facts could support actual or blind‑eye knowledge and proprietary claims and tracing/discovery are matters for trial; however the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims were struck out as time‑barred because the alleged fraudulent scheme could, with reasonable diligence, have been discovered before the limitation cut‑off.

Court Disposition

Reamendment allowed in part: leave granted to plaintiff to amend to plead constructive trust and Quistclose trust against the 2nd Defendant; conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims struck out as time‑barred; ASOC struck out (conspiracy) without dismissing the action against 2nd Defendant; directions given for draft...

Orders

  • Leave granted to plaintiff to re‑amend to include constructive trust claim against 2nd Defendant
  • Leave granted to plaintiff to re‑amend to include Quistclose trust claim against 2nd Defendant