Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proprietary constructive trust

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2024

CHAN TING TING v. GUO GEORGE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1031
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4406/2020

On the pleadings the 6th Defendant was enriched by receipt of HK$96,878 as part of transfers originating from the fraud on the Plaintiff, the enrichment was at the Plaintiff's expense and was unjust, no defence was filed; the proprietary constructive trust claim was abandoned and therefore not considered; accordingly final judgment in default for restitution of HK$96,878 with pre-judgment and post-judgment interest and costs was ordered.
17 Apr 2023

CHAN TING TING v. ZHANG QINGRUN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA727/2020

On the pleadings and materials before the court the plaintiff established that the sums of HK$1,400,000 and HK$770,000 were transferred from the plaintiff's account by mistake/fraud to the 1st and 4th defendants; service was dispensed with or validly effected; the defendants were unjustly enriched and it would be unconscionable for them to retain the funds; accordingly default judgment was warranted and a declaration that those sums are held on proprietary constructive trust for the plaintiff was made, together with an order for costs.
9 Jul 2020

CINATIC TECHNOLOGY LTD v. HEYKAS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2020] HKDC 519
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5874/2019

Dismiss P's Summons because applicant held a prior final judgment and an absolute garnishee order to the same funds and fairness required that applicant be given opportunity to present evidence and argument on priority; accordingly HSBC and the applicant were to be joined and variation of the injunction adjourned pending resolution of the garnishee setting aside application.
22 Feb 2019

ONSCALE, INC. v. LIUHUAN TRADE CO., LTD

Citation

[2019] HKDC 236
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ732/2019

The court continued the ex parte Mareva injunction but varied it from worldwide to domestic because the evidence established a good arguable case on unjust enrichment, knowing receipt, dishonest assistance and conspiracy, there were sufficient assets within Hong Kong (US$200,322.36) to satisfy the claim, and there was a real risk of dissipation with the balance of convenience favouring preservation of the assets.
2 Nov 2018

CHRIST REACHING ASIA MISSION WORLDWIDE, INC. v. HANZHONGSI TRADE LTD

Citation

[2018] HKDC 1340
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ3393/2018

On the pleaded facts the plaintiff had made a payment induced by fraud, the defendant had no legitimate entitlement to the funds, equity therefore imposed a constructive trust and the defendant was unjustly enriched; no defence was pleaded; there was a genuine need to grant declaratory relief to protect the proprietary claim; accordingly judgment in default of defence was properly entered and costs awarded.
18 Jul 2016

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST CO v. ZZZIK INC LTD

Citation

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST CO v. ZZZIK INC LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1139/2016

On the uncontested evidence the transfer was made by fraud and mistake; the defendant was unjustly enriched and, in the circumstances where it is unconscionable for the defendant to retain the funds, equity imposes a proprietary constructive trust enabling the plaintiff to trace and recover the funds; given the defendant's absence and inability to effect transfer the court will grant a vesting order under the Trustee Ordinance and direct the bank to pay the plaintiff.
21 Jun 2013

LAW MAN WAI v. KWAN SAU SIM

Citation

LAW MAN WAI v. KWAN SAU SIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2307/2009

Leave was granted because the supplemental statement largely comprised identification/tabulation of existing documentary evidence and brief responses to the plaintiff's evidence, involved limited new material, was unlikely to disrupt the trial or cause substantial prejudice, and any prejudice could be addressed by directions; nonetheless the late filing attracted an adverse costs order to the plaintiff.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN TING TING v. GUO GEORGE AND OTHERS

CHAN TING TING v. ZHANG QINGRUN AND OTHERS

CINATIC TECHNOLOGY LTD v. HEYKAS TECHNOLOGY CO. LTD AND ANOTHER

ONSCALE, INC. v. LIUHUAN TRADE CO., LTD

CHRIST REACHING ASIA MISSION WORLDWIDE, INC. v. HANZHONGSI TRADE LTD

GUARANTY BANK AND TRUST CO v. ZZZIK INC LTD

LAW MAN WAI v. KWAN SAU SIM