Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Vesting of property

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2019

WU WAN YAU v. WU KAI MAN (胡繼文) (Administrator of the estate of Wu Tam Po (胡譚保) alias Wu Po (胡保) alias Wu Lui Po (胡雷保), Deceased) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2400
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP689/2019

YO Tong never existed as a legal entity able to hold property so the Declaration of Trust failed and a resulting trust reverted the property to the settlors; evidence of devolution since 1970, including the 1994 transaction, showed unity of interest in WHTT Tong and therefore the court summarily granted the declarations and vesting order in favour of WHTT Tong.
7 May 2019

DING YI v. SHUM TUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1232
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB3318/2016

The bankrupt has no locus standi to pursue the wide injunction sought because the disputed rights and interests in the Mainland assets, including the bank account, are property or choses in action that vested in the Official Receiver on the bankruptcy order and do not fall within the personal-claims exception; therefore the injunction is not maintainable by the bankrupt.
2 May 2012

RE FUNG KWOK FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

RE FUNG KWOK FAI AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP761/2012

Because the trustee (mother) died without vesting the lots and no grant of representation had been made so there was no one to represent her estate, the court exercised its power under section 45 of the Trustee Ordinance to vest the lots in the applicants as tenants in common in equal shares.
27 Feb 2009

ZHAO YI E v. YU WAN MUI TERESA AND ANOTHER

Citation

ZHAO YI E v. YU WAN MUI TERESA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2129/2008

The court held that the executors must perform and carry into execution the trust by executing assent and conveyance to vest the property in the plaintiff and may deliver vacant possession prior to grant of probate under sections 66 and 70 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance; the testamentary restriction prevents disposal until 1 January 2015 but does not delay vesting, and potential estate duty concerns do not justify postponing assent if reasonable arrangements for liabilities are made.
16 Sept 2005

RE DAVID C. BUXBAUM

Citation

RE DAVID C. BUXBAUM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB7637/2004

The summons for a stay was dismissed because the appeal was not shown to be sufficiently arguable to justify a stay; a general stay would prejudice creditors and hamper administration; the specific relief sought (revival of foreign lawyer registration, credit card use and bank account operation) is ineffective or governed by statutory provisions and commercial discretion and therefore not appropriate to be granted by stay.
5 Nov 1996

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS

Citation

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCW342/1996

The Official Receiver was held liable for the costs reserved by Deputy Judge Peard and for the costs of the hearing, but the appropriate scale of costs is a common fund basis rather than indemnity because the applications were misconceived and subsequently abandoned and did not amount to conduct warranting indemnity costs; the application to vest the lodged money lacked legal basis under s.198 and was doomed to fail.

Hong Kong Case Law

WU WAN YAU v. WU KAI MAN (胡繼文) (Administrator of the estate of Wu Tam Po (胡譚保) alias Wu Po (胡保) alias Wu Lui Po (胡雷保), Deceased) AND ANOTHER

DING YI v. SHUM TUNG

RE FUNG KWOK FAI AND ANOTHER

ZHAO YI E v. YU WAN MUI TERESA AND ANOTHER

RE DAVID C. BUXBAUM

IMAGE TECHNOLOGY (HONG KONG) LTD AND OTHERS v. HO YING CHEONG AND OTHERS