Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Resulting/constructive trust

Legal area

Court

26 Feb 2026

NANYANG COMMERCIAL BANK, LTD v. SUNGRADE DEVELOPMENT LTD

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1085
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1844/2024

Plaintiff proved outstanding indebtedness under the facilities and the Mortgage; contemporaneous documents and inherent probabilities render the defendant's defences (trust, undue influence, non est factum) not credible and insufficient to raise triable issues; therefore the originating summons is properly disposed of summarily and joinder application dismissed.
10 Nov 2022

LEE CHI KEUNG AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI CHIN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1879/2020

The court dismissed the plaintiffs' interlocutory applications because (1) although there was a serious issue to be tried on the trust claim, plaintiffs failed to show that something ought to be done to secure the property/funds given the substantial net equity in the properties which adequately protected plaintiffs financially; (2) proprietary injunction and preservation orders were discretionary and would risk greater injustice and disputes in enforcement; (3) expert fund‑tracing reports were excluded as inexcusably late and prejudicial; (4) discovery under Order 24 r.10 was not engaged whe…
10 Nov 2022

LIT HEI KING AND ANOTHER v. TSE SHUK FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3315
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1881/2020

Court found plaintiffs had shown a serious issue to be tried on the trust claim but dismissed preservation and proprietary injunction applications because plaintiffs failed to show that something ought to be done for security given adequate protection from defendants' substantial net property equity; balance of convenience favoured refusal; late expert reports and late affidavits were inadmissible for delay and prejudice; discovery orders under Order 24 r.10 were denied where pleadings did not make direct reference to documents or documents were not in defendants' custody.
24 Jan 2017

升力科技有限公司 V. C & C INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LTD

Citation

升力科技有限公司 V. C & C INTERNATIONAL TECHNOLOGY LTD
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ4751/2016

On the pleaded facts the defendant received and was enriched by US$26,891.01 at the plaintiff's expense and the pleaded assertions that the defendant converted funds and completed purchases did not establish a change of position defence; therefore the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of US$26,891.01 with interest. However, the allegation of fraud supporting a declaratory trust is insufficient to grant such equitable relief on default without clear evidence and a trial, so the declaration was refused.
22 Mar 2016

LUN KWAI HAR v. HUNG YING YI

Citation

LUN KWAI HAR v. HUNG YING YI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1164/2013

The Property was held beneficially as tenants in common by the plaintiff and the defendant after the 2005 transfer; the Joint Account was opened solely to receive the sale proceeds and there was no intention either account-holder could by withdrawal appropriate the other's share; therefore withdrawals beyond the defendant's half share required proof of an equitable entitlement and the defendant failed to prove such entitlement, so she must account to the plaintiff for the plaintiff's half less established credits.
26 Feb 2016

LEUNG CHUNG CHING EDWIN AND ANOTHER v. THE ESTATE OF LEUNG ON MEI AMY, DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

LEUNG CHUNG CHING EDWIN AND ANOTHER v. THE ESTATE OF LEUNG ON MEI AMY, DECEASED AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2033/2012

The court held that the estate should not bear the plaintiffs' costs because the litigation was inevitable given the plaintiffs' conduct, but Henry personally conducted and defended the action beyond what was necessary and unreasonably protracted the proceedings; accordingly Henry was joined for costs and ordered to pay 20% of the plaintiffs' costs (to be taxed if not agreed), while no costs were ordered against the estate and each party bears their own costs of the summonses.
17 Jul 2014

HE JIPING v. WANG SHENPING AND ANOTHERS

Citation

HE JIPING v. WANG SHENPING AND ANOTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA200/2005

The claimant failed to discharge the burden of proving that the registered Wang Shares were held on trust for him: contemporaneous documents consistently treated Wang as a shareholder, HE's documentary record contradicted his oral account, HE was found not credible on key points, and there was convincing evidence that Wang provided contributions to the Changchun Project that justified his beneficial ownership; accordingly the claim was dismissed.
20 May 2014

WONG YUEN HAN v. WONG SHING CHUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

WONG YUEN HAN v. WONG SHING CHUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA458/2013

The summons for a preservation order was dismissed because the applicant failed to show why preservation was now necessary given long unexplained delay, insufficient evidence that the specified items were bona fide part of the estates (notably the 043 BOC account), and because damages would be an adequate remedy; accordingly the court exercised its discretion to refuse the preservation order and ordered costs against the applicant.
1 Nov 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

On the balance of probabilities the judge found that 6th Aunt intended the transfers to Wai to be held for the joint benefit of Wai and Kam; the monies used to acquire the Properties were repayments of that joint entitlement, therefore Sim is the beneficial owner of the Properties and Kam is entitled to an account of the 6th Aunt's Gift.
1 Jun 2012

MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG v. SEVERN VILLA LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

MIMI KAR KEE WONG HUNG v. SEVERN VILLA LTD AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP522/2011

The court, applying a narrow residual discretion under Order 113, found a limited stay appropriate on the specific facts (difficulty securing alternative accommodation and need to preserve valuable furniture) and granted an interim stay to 4 pm on 9 June while relisting the matter for full consideration on 8 June including orders for removal/storage of the furniture; costs reserved.