Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Common intention

  • 28 Jan 2026

    SUN HENG v. TE THENG

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 604
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA585/2019

    The court found on the balance of probabilities that a Joint Investment Agreement existed in respect of Flat 6A and that the Defendant's contemporaneous notes constituted admissions of the Plaintiff's contributions; the court was not satisfied the Defendant proved that the remittances were his own funds from the French companies; accordingly the Defendant held beneficial interests for the Plaintiff (50% in Flat 6A; Plaintiff entitled to 30% of Haven Shop and to trace proceeds used to acquire Larvotto) and breached duties as trustee by failing to account and pay the Plaintiff his share; declar…

  • 12 Jan 2026

    方淑敏 對 薛玉英

    Citation
    [2026] HKDC 69
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2897/2021

    Court found on the balance of probabilities a common intention that the plaintiff alone should have beneficial ownership; plaintiff paid and bore all purchase and upkeep costs and detrimentally relied on assurances; therefore a constructive trust arises in favour of the plaintiff and the defendant holds only as a constructive trustee; the 2000 agreement was either non‑existent or procured by duress and/or time‑barred so the defendant’s counterclaim is dismissed.

  • 4 Dec 2024

    鄧欽生 對 鄧春生

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 1940
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2436/2019

    The court found the plaintiff's evidence inherently inconsistent and not credible, and that he failed to prove any common intention or a contemporaneous agreement conferring a 1/6 beneficial interest; the credible evidence established the 2001 transaction was an unconditional transfer to enable the defendant to secure a mortgage and provide cash to the plaintiff with the plaintiff agreeing to repay the mortgage, therefore no constructive trust arose and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed; any contractual claim was also not pursued within the statutory limitation period.

  • 26 Nov 2024

    林任梅 對 已故黃尚勇的遺產代理人

    Citation
    [2024] HKDC 2029
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCMP1922/2022

    Court accepted plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence that she paid all purchase monies and had no intention to gift; there was no common intention to share beneficial ownership and the presumption of advancement was displaced by the estranged relationship and coercion; therefore a resulting trust arose and the deceased held the legal title only as trustee while the plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner.

  • 9 Jun 2022

    WONG KAI FOOK v. WONG KING CHAN

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 1652
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2621/2018

    The court found a mutual oral understanding: Defendant bought the Property in her name and paid downpayments/ancillary acquisition costs; Plaintiff agreed to and in practice paid the monthly mortgage instalments and related expenses and was entitled to exclusive occupation for life. On these facts the appropriate equitable relief was a declaration of a life interest in favour of the Plaintiff (exclusive occupation during his lifetime) rather than a declaration that beneficial ownership be shared as pleaded; counterclaim dismissed and each party to bear own costs.

  • 1 Dec 2021

    SIT LAI YUK v. TSE HAU TANG

    Citation
    [2021] HKDC 1511
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ6440/2019

    The plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that there was a common intention that she be the beneficial owner and that she detrimentally relied on that intention by paying the purchase price, mortgage and associated costs; it would be unconscionable for the defendant to assert the legal title; therefore the defendant holds his legal interest on trust for the plaintiff and must vest his share to her.

  • 22 Nov 2019

    LEUNG HANG LIN AND ANOTHER v. LAM MEI YUNG

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2819
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1374/2017

    The court accepted plaintiffs' account as to the 2005 family discussions and the contemporaneous 2005 will, found that plaintiffs supplied the purchase monies and paid outgoings, and concluded it would be unconscionable for the defendant to repudiate the shared common intention; accordingly from 2005 beneficial ownership differed from legal title and the defendant holds the property on constructive trust for the plaintiffs.

  • 13 Nov 2017

    王錚 對 謝麗琼

    Citation
    王錚 對 謝麗琼
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CAMP23/2017

    The trial judge’s factual findings and credibility assessments — specifically that the parties’ 2000 agreement permitted temporary occupation by the appellant and his daughter in return for appellant meeting mortgage and other payments, and that appellant did not thereby acquire any beneficial interest — were supported by adequate evidence and legal reasoning; payments alone do not automatically confer a beneficial interest absent a common intention established on a holistic assessment. The appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success required for leave under District Court Ordin…

  • 5 May 2017

    LEE SIU BIU AND ANOTHER v. LI SIU SHUEN by TAN HUIQI, his guardian ad litem

    Citation
    LEE SIU BIU AND ANOTHER v. LI SIU SHUEN by TAN HUIQI, his guardian ad litem
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ4399/2014

    No common intention was proved that the parties would hold beneficial ownership jointly; the HK$100,000 transfer was more probably a personal loan; the defendant failed to prove repayment but any claim for the loan is time-barred under s.4 Limitation Ordinance; accordingly plaintiffs' constructive trust claim is dismissed and costs awarded to defendant.

  • 28 Jun 2016

    YU CHI MAN AND OTHERS v. YU YIP LAM

    Citation
    YU CHI MAN AND OTHERS v. YU YIP LAM
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1252/2013

    The court found no common intention constructive trust in favour of the defendant; accepted that an oral family arrangement existed and that plaintiffs acted to their detriment such that it would be unconscionable for defendant to renege; therefore the oral arrangement was enforceable by part performance/proprietary estoppel, entitling the plaintiffs to a declaration of equal beneficial ownership and assignment of legal title; the defendant failed to prove the alleged five loans and the counterclaim was dismissed.