Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trust property

Legal area

Court

15 Feb 2024

CHING CHUNG YIN SECINA v. CHING CHUNG KAM ANDREW IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF CHING CHI SAU, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 527
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1643/2021

The Order Absolute was properly made because Wilson Chan J’s earlier order had earmarked HK$1,638,000 as beneficially held for Secina so the bank held the Amount on her behalf and an enforceable equitable charge could be imposed to secure the undisputed judgment Sum; the trust character of the funds and any potential circularity did not prevent enforcement; allegations of inequitable conduct by Andrew did not, in light of his assurance to the court to release the Amount minus the Sum within 14 days, justify setting aside the Order Absolute; accordingly the appeal was dismissed.
31 Aug 2022

何漢標對李妙桂 REPRESENTING THE ESTATE OF 何漢嘉 (DECEASED)

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1249
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP129/2022

The Court refused leave to appeal because the appellant's claim disclosed no reasonable prospect of success: it re‑litigated discredited factual assertions, was properly characterised as a breach of contract claim and barred by the six‑year limitation under Cap 347 s4(1)(a), and the counterclaim was supported by the evidence and prior foreign judgment; accordingly leave was refused and costs awarded.
21 Sept 2018

ZHANG YAN AND OTHERS v. ASA BULLION LTD

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1555/2018

The summons was dismissed by withdrawal because the defendant failed to provide adequate, verified evidence explaining the origin, authenticity and accounting treatment of the claimed customer withdrawal requests and the asserted 'trust account' holdings; absent such evidence the court would not authorise release under the prior order.
14 Oct 2008

RE NAVA SC SECURITIES LTD

Citation

RE NAVA SC SECURITIES LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1039/2008

The court declared that the assets in question were trust assets. Identified clients' assets could be paid into court or transferred to the Official Trustee under ss67 and 68 (except where the beneficiary company was dissolved, in which case s292 treats the property as bona vacantia). Assets for unidentified beneficiaries should be paid into court under s62. The liquidators were authorised to convert currency, sell securities where appropriate and to refrain from dealing with securities where uneconomical, and to recoup and apportion their costs rateably across the client groups.
7 May 2007

CHEUNG MAN YU v. LAU YUEN CHING AND OTHERS

Citation

CHEUNG MAN YU v. LAU YUEN CHING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV213/2006

The Court held that the evidence (notably the 1932-33 donation books and contemporaneous conduct) established that the Lin Fat Tong was a charitable trust for the advancement of religion/public worship from the 1930s; the funds later held in company/bank accounts were trust property held for that charity; the applicant was a trustee or quasi-trustee and had locus standi to seek disclosure and the deposit of the funds; accordingly the substantive appeal was allowed and the court ordered disclosure and deposit in terms of para (a) of the originating summons, with liberty to apply as to other re…
18 Apr 2006

CHAN MOU SHEK LAN v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE OF THE HKSAR

Citation

CHAN MOU SHEK LAN v. SECRETARY OF JUSTICE OF THE HKSAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP647/2006

The plaintiff produced evidence of beneficial entitlement to the shares and dividends; the shares held by the dissolved nominee company were held on trust for the plaintiff and therefore did not become bona vacantia under s292; accordingly the Court has jurisdiction under s52 of the Trustee Ordinance to vest the right to transfer the shares and accrued dividends in the plaintiff and it exercises that jurisdiction to grant the vesting order.
16 May 2002

Re Choi Sze Fai

Citation

Re Choi Sze Fai
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB1276/1997

Master Wong found on the evidence that Mr. Choi failed to co-operate and demonstrated unsatisfactory conduct (misdescription of property interest, failure to discharge encumbrances and orders on title, commencing proceedings without informing the Official Receiver, evasive and discourteous conduct) and that the Official Receiver's objection under s30A(4)(c) and (d) was therefore valid; exercising discretion and allowing a one-year reduction for the Official Receiver's delay, the court suspended automatic discharge for three years from 14 April 2002 and ordered no costs (order nisi to be made…
26 Jul 2000

GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. TANG KWONG MING AND ANOTHER

Citation

GEORGE Y.C. MOK & CO. (a firm) v. TANG KWONG MING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP7175/1999

The fund was settled for specified purposes and remains trust property; the applicant-solicitor cannot apply set-off or a solicitor's lien to the fund or to the portion apportioned to the 1st Claimant unless the claimant consents or there is a court order sanctioning it; the interpleader order had finally apportioned and disposed of the fund so the court would not make the supplemental orders sought by the 1st Claimant beyond implementing the existing order.