Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Beneficial interest

Legal area

Court

17 Jan 2024

楊麗祥對蔡美華作為2022年6月16日土地審裁處命令就針對對上述的訴訟而被委任為已故陳汝生的遺產代表人

Citation

[2024] HKLdT 3
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD1573/2021

Tribunal held respondent failed to prove any beneficial equitable interest arising from the alleged 1975 oral agreement; the stamped written tenancy agreements were genuine and binding; applicant was not entitled to protection as a bona fide purchaser for value without notice because purchaser failed to inspect and make proper inquiries; mesne profits awarded at HK$7,000 per month; order for recovery of vacant possession and costs made in favour of applicant.
30 Nov 2023

CHEUNG KWAI CHI v. KING CHARTER ENTERPRISES LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3031
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1365/2017

On the evidence and credibility findings the court accepted the Defendants' account that the Plaintiff agreed in or around November 2008 to sell her 20% beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties for HK$2,304,875 and that the Defendants paid that sum between 20 November and 23 December 2008; the Defendants discharged the burden of proof on the Buy Out Agreement; accordingly the Plaintiff ceased to have any beneficial interest in the Kin Man Properties from 1 December 2008 and her claim is dismissed.
12 Jun 2023

LAU CHUI FEI AND ANOTHER v. AU CHI HOE ADMUND AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1468
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA847/2019

Court found on the balance of probabilities that Lau and Fung entered profit-sharing ventures with the 1st Defendant (not loans and not beneficial ownership/ trust against the legal owner Father), that the HK$13,440,000 under the Compensation Agreement formed part of the consideration for sale of 5A and therefore fell within the profit-sharing arrangement, and that neither statutory nor common law illegality/public policy barred recovery; judgment entered against 1st Defendant for specified sums and claim against 2nd Defendant dismissed.
22 Sept 2022

LEE PO WING v. SEE WAH FAN

Citation

[2022] HKDC 950
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP2897/2014

The appeal was dismissed and the charging order nisi was correctly made absolute because the defendant failed to adduce any credible or documentary evidence that the beneficial interest had passed to the purported purchaser, the alleged payments were inconsistent with the provisional agreement, multiple charging orders registered after the purported completion date undermined the completion claim, and the issues raised related to creditor priority which did not prevent making the charging order absolute.
19 Nov 2020

FANG QI v. LUO GUIYING

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2942
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA770/2019

The court held that it was not arguable that Zhang had a beneficial interest because evidence established a common intention that the Property was a gift to Fang (as reflected in the DOT) so no resulting trust in Zhang arose; further, even assuming Fang had a beneficial interest under the DOT, it was unregistered and would not bind the plaintiff mortgagee, who was a subsequent bona fide mortgagee for value under LRO s.3(2); accordingly both preliminary questions answered 'No' and possession was granted to the plaintiff.
9 Jul 2018

LO MAN YAU v. CHIU SUNG FAI AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 387
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV198/2017

The Judge erred as a matter of law by applying the non-corporate presumption of resulting trust rather than the corporate starting point that both legal and beneficial title vest in the company and the shareholder must rebut that inference; because the Judge did not assess whether the 1st defendant rebutted the corporate inference concerning intention at acquisition the judgment and costs order were set aside and the issue of whether a resulting trust arose is remitted for retrial.
13 Dec 2017

程雪梅 v. 曾凡英 AND OTHERS

Citation

程雪梅 v. 曾凡英 AND OTHERS
Court

Lands Tribunal
Case number

LDPD371/2016

Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear and rule on evidence relating to the 3rd respondent's beneficial interest though it lacked jurisdiction to grant declaratory relief on that interest; respondents were the successful parties so costs generally follow the event but a 10% deduction from respondents' recoverable costs was justified because material evidence was inadequately disclosed in witness statements leading to extended examination-in-chief; accordingly the costs order nisi was varied so the applicant pays 90% of respondents' costs, with certificate for counsel, to be taxed on Distri…
13 Nov 2017

王錚對謝麗琼

Citation

王錚對謝麗琼
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP23/2017

The trial judge’s factual findings and credibility assessments — specifically that the parties’ 2000 agreement permitted temporary occupation by the appellant and his daughter in return for appellant meeting mortgage and other payments, and that appellant did not thereby acquire any beneficial interest — were supported by adequate evidence and legal reasoning; payments alone do not automatically confer a beneficial interest absent a common intention established on a holistic assessment. The appellant failed to show a reasonable prospect of success required for leave under District Court Ordin…
4 Nov 2016

LAM FUNG CHING ANNIE v. TSE KWOK WING JACKY AND ANOTHER

Citation

LAM FUNG CHING ANNIE v. TSE KWOK WING JACKY AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1865/2016

The court exercised its discretion to decide the leave application on written submissions, found the proposed grounds lacked any reasonable prospect of success and that the defendants failed to identify arguable errors in law or fact (including incorrect allocation of burden and no basis to disturb credibility findings); accordingly leave to appeal and stay were refused and costs awarded against the defendants.
27 Jun 2016

RE TSANG YIN HONG

Citation

RE TSANG YIN HONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCB4387/2007

The court found on the evidence (payments traced to Madam Yiu and consistent admissions by Mr Tsang) that Madam Yiu alone paid for the purchase and discharged the onus to show a contrary intention to equal beneficial ownership; consequently Mr Tsang has no beneficial interest and the Trustees' application for sale is dismissed; alternatively, even if he had a beneficial share, the court would refuse sale because sale would cause very great hardship to Madam Yiu.