Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Beneficial ownership of property

Legal area

Court

6 Oct 2025

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2020

The judge found the Plaintiff's grounds for appeal unarguable and that the Defendant had reasonable grounds to investigate the validity of the 2019 Will given suspicious circumstances caused by the Deceased and the Plaintiff; the costs order (Plaintiff's costs and 65% of Defendant's costs to be paid from the estate) was a lawful exercise of discretion taking into account relative success, conduct of the parties and the exceptions to costs following the event; accordingly there was no reasonable prospect of success and leave to appeal was refused.
16 Jun 2023

LYYC v. CHL and CSMS, the Executrices of the Estate of CGSK also known as CSKG, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1585
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP683/2021

Applicant failed to prove she was being maintained by the deceased immediately before death within s3(1)(ix) Cap 481: payments were not shown to be substantial contributions for maintenance or to reflect an assumed responsibility (they were more consistent with remuneration, one‑off gifts or payments that ceased years before death), the intimate/settled relationship had effectively ended years before death, therefore no locus and the Cap 481 claim must be dismissed; separately the City Garden Apartment was held on trust for ASC and HSH and is not part of the estate.
8 Jul 2022

NKPL v. NSF

Citation

[2022] HKFC 140
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC14532/2019

The court found the Mother credible and that she paid HK$1.5m towards acquisition; on the evidence a common intention constructive trust was inferred from pre-acquisition conduct and later communications, so the Mother holds a 30% beneficial interest in the FMH (subject to the mortgage). Ancillary relief: after valuing assets and needs and securing child maintenance, the matrimonial pot is split 40:60 (Wife:Husband), the Husband must pay the Wife HK$45,764.08 within two months of Decree Absolute, and specified periodical child maintenance orders (initial low level then higher upon Wife rentin…
29 Jun 2018

LLC v. LMWA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKFC 100
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC4683/2014

Court exercised discretion on costs: husband (as spouse) had an obligation to engage in basic settlement negotiation and his silence to the Calderbank offer warranted consideration against him; the Father, as an outsider, had different obligations. Late disclosures gave the wife costs of those disclosure applications but did not justify full deprivation of defendants' costs. Weighing conduct, prejudice and the parties' financial positions, the court varied the costs order nisi to no order between husband and wife and apportioned costs against the wife as to 80% of the Father's costs.
14 Jan 2016

CMW v. WTY

Citation

CMW v. WTY
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC8759/2010

The Summons was dismissed because the Respondent failed to justify the lateness and repeated an earlier refused attempt to file affirmations without any change of circumstances; the Respondent was legally represented for much of the period and had adequate opportunity to apply earlier; allowing the application would prejudice the Petitioner and undermine case management objectives under the Civil Justice Reform; accordingly leave to file affirmations was refused and costs awarded to the Petitioner.
22 Feb 2013

YKYM v. YMCT

Citation

YKYM v. YMCT
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15997/2011

On the evidence the mother paid the purchase price and intended the London property for her and the family’s use; the putative gift to the parties was not proven. The Wife failed to discharge the onus of rebutting the presumption of resulting trust or to establish an effective gift/advancement. The property was held in the husband’s name for convenience; the mother retained sole beneficial ownership.
5 Jan 2012

LAU YUEN YI v. LEUNG CHI YUNG

Citation

LAU YUEN YI v. LEUNG CHI YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2030/2008

The Minutes of Consent Order, incorporated into an Order By Consent and agreed to be "in full and final settlement" of ancillary relief, superseded any prior agreement or cheque-based claim; accordingly the plaintiff's claim on the HK$4,000,000 cheque is dismissed (the judge also found the cheque was produced to pacify the plaintiff and was tainted by duress, though that was not the decisive ground).
7 Dec 2010

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

DOREEN DO YE TONG v. WESLEY WAI HEI WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV124/2010

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the District Court/Family Court order and held that the Family Court does have jurisdiction to determine whether the property held in the name of Fortune Wealth was an asset of the husband and/or the wife at the time of the consent order for the purpose of clarifying the ambit of that consent order; the matter was remitted to the trial judge (Deputy District Judge Chan) to determine that issue on the evidence already heard.
30 Jun 2005

RE LWO, MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON

Citation

RE LWO, MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2965/2001

The court will provisionally approve the repayment-by-instalments proposal as being in the MIP's interest provided concrete undertakings are given by the brother to preserve the MIP's accommodation (no encumbrance without leave and right for the MIP to live at the property until further order); absent such undertakings the court will require further hearing and may consider replacing the committee; additionally the committee must file expenditure accounts to justify ongoing maintenance payments.
27 Jul 1994

CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CRESTFLAME ESTATES LTD. AND OTHERS

Citation

CARRIAN HOLDINGS LTD. v. CRESTFLAME ESTATES LTD. AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV205/1993

The Court of Appeal refused to overturn the trial judge's credibility finding because the judge had properly used his advantage of seeing and hearing witnesses and there was no glaring improbability or conclusive documentary fact to show the finding was wrong; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the trial judge's finding that the payments and arrangements did not establish CHL as beneficial owner was upheld.