Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Possession and mesne profits

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2022

YEUNG YU KI 對 AU YEUNG PO MUI 及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKDC 586
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5739/2018

Defendants failed to prove on balance that there was a common intention to share beneficial ownership or that they made direct contributions to the purchase that would give rise to a resulting trust or equitable interest; evidence was neutral and legal title passed to the plaintiff, therefore defendants' equitable claims fail and plaintiff is entitled to possession, mesne profits and specified charges.
30 Sept 2021

陳雲及另一人對振威金屬有限公司及另二人

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2911
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA947/2015

The court found the plaintiffs' account of an oral sale not credible on the evidence and contemporaneous conduct; even if an oral agreement had existed it was unenforceable because contracts for disposition of land require written signed evidence under Cap.219 s3; the 1999 transaction was completed with deposit paid by cheques and assignment executed, so defendants hold legal title; accordingly plaintiffs' proprietary claim failed and defendants were entitled to possession and to recover rent arrears, rates, ground rent and mesne profits as quantified by the court.
12 Mar 2020

TING SHUK MAN, SYLVIA v. WONG TAK, by WONG KOWK LEUNG his guardian ad litem

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 409
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1440/2016

The plaintiff signed the 2012 tenancy agreement as agent for the registered owner as shown by the document and surrounding facts; the written representation of agency in the agreement was false on the plaintiff's pleaded case and was relied on by the defendant, entitling the defendant to rescind; tenancy by estoppel does not bar the defendant from denying the plaintiff's capacity to sue personally; therefore the plaintiff's claim is dismissed and the defendant's counterclaim for rescission and related relief is allowed.
26 Mar 2019

彭一鳴對彭錦華 (為死者梁慶梅遺產執行人)

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 790
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1709/2015

Plaintiff's evidence was not credible and failed to prove an oral agreement, a clear promise, or the necessary reliance and detriment; contemporaneous documentary and conduct evidence contradicted the claim; therefore no constructive trust or proprietary estoppel arose and the declared legal shares (mother 50%/plaintiff 50%) stand; plaintiff must yield vacant possession and defendant (executor) may realize the estate's 50% interest; defendant entitled to costs on the basis set out in the judgment.
21 Mar 2019

KONG HON KUI THOMAS and KONG HON QUAN MARIUS (Administrators of the Estate of Kong So Ngo, Deceased) v. WU YUK CHUN JUDY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 742
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA350/2013

Claim dismissed: court found the alleged Promise was not proven with sufficient clarity or credibility and there was no satisfactory evidence of detrimental reliance; all disputed bank funds remained beneficially the deceased's and must be returned; administrators entitled to ownership and possession of the Property and all estate assets; mesne profits and other orders granted as set out.
14 Feb 2017

LO MAN YAU v. CHIU SUNG FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

LO MAN YAU v. CHIU SUNG FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ2516/2013

Defendant proved he contributed money towards acquisition (found to be $461,560 as qualifying contribution) and therefore a resulting trust arose giving him a 30.77% beneficial interest; purchaser failed to inspect or make proper inquiries and was fixed with constructive notice, so purchaser's registered title is subject to that beneficial interest; plaintiff's claim for possession and mesne profits dismissed and declaration granted for 30.77% beneficial ownership; costs awarded to 1st defendant.
5 Aug 2016

LAI HOI YEE v. KWAN CHI PUN, the Personal Representative of the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased

Citation

LAI HOI YEE v. KWAN CHI PUN, the Personal Representative of the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2078/2015

Judge found the defendants failed to prove the alleged inter vivos arrangements or any equitable interest: Lai's evidence was unreliable and the Reply did not evidence an intention to vest beneficial interest in Hoi Yee; there was no credible evidence of a secret trust; on s.4 the applicant failed the first hurdle because she had been provided for (notably by an insurance payment) and no special circumstances established to render the Will unreasonable; therefore judgment for Kwan, dismissal of counterclaim and dismissal of s.4 claim, with possession orders and ancillary undertakings by Kwan…
13 Jul 2015

BEST JOINT INVESTMENTS LTD 對 KAGANI LTD 及另一人

Citation

BEST JOINT INVESTMENTS LTD 對 KAGANI LTD 及另一人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2608/2006

The court found the 1999 conveyance conclusively acknowledged receipt of the purchase price and the belated, inconsistent documentary allegations by the defendants were inherently unreliable and contrary to prior determinations; accordingly the alleged side agreement and equitable lien failed, so Best Joint was entitled to possession and mesne profits from 15 August 2008 at HK$60,000 per month until delivery of vacant possession.
5 Jul 2013

車漢泉對車瑞玲及已故車玉華的遺產代理人

Citation

車漢泉對車瑞玲及已故車玉華的遺產代理人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2258/2006

The court rejected the plaintiff's claims because the alleged oral agreement was vague, unparticularised and unsupported by contemporaneous evidence and therefore could not found a proprietary interest or constructive trust; the alleged instructions by the deceased did not establish entitlement to the property's legal or beneficial title; the HK$860,398.14 payment lacked proven legal basis for recovery; the defendant was entitled to possession of the property and mesne profits from 30 March 2011 at HK$5,000 per month with interest at 4% per annum until return of vacant possession.
26 Aug 2008

MAU I BUSINESS CENTRE LTD v. TENFORD HOLDINGS LTD

Citation

MAU I BUSINESS CENTRE LTD v. TENFORD HOLDINGS LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ731/2008

The Defendant failed to discharge the burden under s.357 because the evidence showed the Plaintiff had been genuinely carrying on a business since 1995, had a proper registered business address, derived income from licences and claimed significant monthly gross profit; nominal paid-up capital and refusal to produce audited accounts were insufficient to establish that the Plaintiff will be unable to pay the Defendant's costs. Therefore the court lacked jurisdiction under s.357 to order security for costs and the Defendant's application was dismissed.