Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Common intention constructive trust

Legal area

Court

22 Apr 2026

CHAN KA CHUN v. SIN HIN TUNG HIDY FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIN WAI HANG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 709
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP190/2024

The 2nd Defendant failed to prove a common intention constructive trust or resulting trust; evidence (PSPA, assignment as joint tenants, 1st Defendant's joint execution of the mortgage and assumption of joint and several liability, address records and adverse inference from the 1st Defendant's non‑attendance) establishes the 1st and 2nd Defendants intended to be legal and beneficial joint tenants; therefore the Charging Order Absolute against the 1st Defendant is valid and the court exercises its discretion under the Partition Ordinance and Rules of the District Court to order sale of the Pro…
17 Apr 2026

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 609
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP208/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's factual findings — that the litigation was attributable to the conduct of the deceased and the Plaintiff and that there was a reasonable need to investigate the 2019 will — were open to him and justified departing from the usual costs rule; the Judge properly considered pre-action conduct and Plaintiff's stonewalling as relevant to costs; the plaintiff's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and did not show any error of principle or plainly wrong exercise of discretion.
13 Apr 2026

P v. D1 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKDC 560
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ811/2020

The Notice of Severance and the Deed of Gift are void because D1 lacked the mental capacity in September 2018 to understand, retain and weigh information necessary to execute those documents (as established by contemporaneous Hospital Authority records and reliable expert psychiatric evidence). Consequently P's CICT and adverse possession claims fail for lack of evidential basis, particularly absence of detrimental reliance and intention to exclude, and D2's counterclaim founded on validity of the instruments fails. The court has jurisdiction to vacate any registered instruments and directs s…
24 Mar 2026

FU LAM LAM v. FU TING TING

Citation

[2026] HKCA 458
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP169/2025

The Court refused leave to appeal because the Plaintiff failed to show the Judge's primary factual findings were plainly wrong or that the intended appeal had a reasonable prospect of success or any other reason in the interests of justice; accordingly leave was denied, no stay was granted, and costs were ordered against the Plaintiff.
20 Mar 2026

CREDIT ONE FINANCE LTD 對 CHEUNG YIU CHO及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 449
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2540/2021

D2 failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove a common intention constructive trust or to establish a resulting trust; contemporaneous documents and D1's admissions establish D1 as sole beneficial owner; D2's evidence was unreliable, included AI-generated or fabricated material, and therefore the beneficial interest remains with D1 and the plaintiff may enforce the charging and sale orders.
13 Mar 2026

陳美華對蕭榮娟 as the sole executrix of the estate of 陳國 (“DECEASED”)及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 250
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1098/2023

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff proved a HK$100,000 contribution applied to purchase on 14 May 2002; contemporaneous documents (2002 will and bank record) together with surrounding conduct and the later 'Siu–Chan agreement' established a common intention constructive trust and, alternatively, a purchase-money resulting trust; plaintiff therefore holds a 38.28% beneficial interest in the property and the defendant's exclusion of the plaintiff in 2021 amounted to unlawful ouster; nominal damages and costs are awarded.
13 Mar 2026

TSUNG LUNG CHAI v. TSANG LIN ON

Citation

[2026] HKDC 419
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3062/2023

The plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving the alleged oral/common intention agreement or the Ownership Agreement because viva voce evidence was inconsistent, unsupported by contemporaneous documents and critical witnesses (NK Tsang and builder's representative) did not give evidence; the defendant failed to prove the Terms of Residence or a Rental Agreement by Conduct because alleged telephone offers and acceptance by conduct were not established with the necessary certainty and clarity; therefore on the balance of probabilities neither substantive claim succeeded and legal titl…
27 Feb 2026

CHEUNG SAI LON v. CHEUNG SAI HA AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1150
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2218/2019

Plaintiff failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that he contributed the asserted sums or that any common intention existed to give him beneficial interests in FF Shops or House 71/72; contemporaneous documents and conduct contradicted Plaintiff’s account and his credibility was undermined; accordingly legal title stood and no constructive or resulting trust arose, so all claims based on alleged trusts, breaches and tracing failed.
11 Feb 2026

LI YILIN, the administratrix of the estate of YIP FUNG KAM, deceased v. YIP CHI HO

Citation

[2026] HKDC 78
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1595/2022

The court preferred the evidence of the Children over the Plaintiff, found on the balance of probabilities that the Deceased held the Property as paper owner under a First Trust Arrangement (established by payment of intention money, mortgage and household contributions and resultant detrimental reliance) and that a Second Trust Arrangement vested the sole beneficial interest in the Defendant; accordingly the Plaintiff’s claim was dismissed and she was ordered to transfer the estate interest to the Defendant (with statutory facilitation if she defaulted).
30 Jan 2026

謝美英對梁國強及另一人

Citation

[2026] HKDC 79
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3296/2023

On the facts the plaintiff proved a common intention constructive trust: she provided all deposits, mortgage payments and related outgoings for both properties, the defendants failed to prove any contribution or entitlement, and it would be unconscionable for the first defendant to assert legal title and for the transfer to the second defendant (without consideration) to defeat her equitable interest; accordingly plaintiff is sole beneficial owner and the 2021 severance and transfer are set aside and their registrations vacated.