Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Co-ownership

Legal area

Court

26 Nov 2024

林任梅對已故黃尚勇的遺產代理人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2029
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1922/2022

Court accepted plaintiff's uncontradicted evidence that she paid all purchase monies and had no intention to gift; there was no common intention to share beneficial ownership and the presumption of advancement was displaced by the estranged relationship and coercion; therefore a resulting trust arose and the deceased held the legal title only as trustee while the plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner.
28 Oct 2024

SO KWAI CHUNG V. WONG WAI YING ANITA AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 28
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMV101/2024

The Appeal Committee granted leave because the two framed questions concerning the capacity of proprietary estoppel and acquiescence to create or bind co‑owners with respect to easements are of requisite importance to warrant a final hearing.
4 Jul 2024

LAU CHUN HUNG v. LAU YUET WAH, the executrix of the estate of AU-YEUNG YUET YING aka AU YEUNG YUET YING, the Deceased, and in her own capacity AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKDC 1074
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP5762/2023

The Plaintiff commenced unnecessary proceedings because the parties had already agreed to sell the Property and the 1st Defendant had taken practical steps to effect the sale; the Plaintiff sought reliefs beyond that agreement and did not establish necessity for the summons, therefore the Plaintiff must pay the 1st Defendant's costs on a party and party basis, to be taxed if not agreed, with no certificate for counsel.
7 Jun 2024

BUDDY FINANCE LTD 對 HO WAI HONG ANDY及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 893
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP4254/2023

The court granted the sale order because the mortgage deed conferred the plaintiff the right to realize the mortgaged half-interest, physical partition was infeasible given the unit's layout (no second access) and would substantially reduce value, the forced-sale valuation supported a sale at not less than HK$4,000,000, and the second defendant failed to discharge the burden to prove that sale would cause her substantial hardship.
6 Mar 2024

沈玉麟對冠益國際有限公司

Citation

[2024] HKDC 307
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ5345/2019

On the evidence, the presumption of a resulting trust was rebutted by evidence of an intention to gift: after the 1991 purchase the parties were co‑owners so beneficial ownership remained joint; after the 2010 transfer the plaintiff's words, subsequent conduct and use of the property for the son's business financing established that the plaintiff intended to vest beneficial ownership in the son/company so the defendant company holds the beneficial interest; the son's late, unsupported application to conduct advocacy was refused and only permission to act as a McKenzie friend was granted.
19 Dec 2023

王玉雲及另一人對王玉群

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1799
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1807/2023

Partition was impracticable for the small multi-storey unit; the defendant did not oppose sale and has alternative accommodation; the defendant failed to show sale would be detrimental or cause very great hardship; therefore an order for sale under Partition Ordinance ss.2 and 6 was appropriate and granted with specified terms.
31 Mar 2023

WONG HON KUEN KEN AND ANOTHER v. WONG TSING

Citation

[2023] HKDC 423
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3391/2022

Although service by letter‑box was valid, plaintiffs failed to establish entitlement to a forced sale: they had other remedies (able to sell their own shares on the market), did not prove partition was impracticable in a manner that justified sale, and did not show the sale would be objectively beneficial to all co‑owners nor that the defendant would suffer very great hardship; plaintiffs’ redevelopment motive and speculative increase in value did not justify invoking Partition Ordinance to convert the defendant’s one‑third interest into cash in his absence.
21 Jun 2022

RE YIP SHEUNG CHING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2010
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP606/2022

The court's decision turns on whether the applicants established their entitlement to the deceased's half interest and complied with statutory and evidentiary requirements for a vesting order; only upon such proof can the court vest title accordingly.
23 May 2022

LAI LAP KEE AND ANOTHER v. LAI JIN TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1442/2016

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted Tong/Fai's evidence corroborated by Father's diaries, contemporaneous bank statements, mortgage documents and handwritten notes and rejected Kee and Seto's inconsistent evidence; therefore Tong/Fai is legal and beneficial owner of the first floor and co-owner (50%) of the ground floor; Kee and Seto must deliver vacant possession of the first floor and pay mesne profits for the relevant period; there was no constructive exclusion of Tong/Fai from the ground floor and his claim for mesne profits in respect of the ground floor was dismissed.
23 May 2022

LAI LAP KEE AND ANOTHER v. LAI JIN TONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1476
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA295/2016

The court accepted contemporaneous documentary evidence (Father's Diaries, bank statements, mortgage offer, re-mortgage behaviour) and reliable witness testimony (Tong, Ngai, Isabel, Ming) over Kee and Seto's inconsistent evidence, holding that Tong is legal and beneficial owner of the first floor and that Tong and Kee are equal beneficial owners of the ground floor; mesne profits awarded for occupation of the first floor for the six-year limitation period and ongoing monthly sums until delivery of possession, while mesne profits for the ground floor were dismissed for lack of ouster.