Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Declaration of ownership

Legal area

Court

12 Mar 2018

LAM LAP KIN v. CHOY SI YIM (The Executor of the Estate of AU SIU LAU, Deceased) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 503
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1320/2013

The plaintiff's evidence, including the alleged 1993 promise and claimed payments, was not credible or sufficient; the deceased did not make the alleged promise; the plaintiff's contributions did not exceed 20% of the purchase price; therefore neither a constructive trust nor a presumed resulting trust was established and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, with the plaintiff remaining a 20% co-owner and responsible for related rates and management fees to that extent.
20 Jul 2017

ZHANG XINQIANG v. CHEUNG SHUI CHEUNG

Citation

ZHANG XINQIANG v. CHEUNG SHUI CHEUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2013

On the balance of probabilities the Court found that the Cheung Yau referred to in the 1950 and 1963 memorials was the plaintiff's late father (not the defendant's late father), therefore the defendant's deceased had no beneficial interest in the Properties; declarations were granted in favour of Zhang, the Registration was ordered vacated, the Probate was not revoked and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
2 Feb 2016

CHEUNG JACK HUI-FUNG v. SHUM YEE MEE

Citation

CHEUNG JACK HUI-FUNG v. SHUM YEE MEE
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ795/2009

Court found on balance that (1) Madam Tang did not abandon the property and had taken steps in 1980-82 showing intent to retain her interest; (2) defendant failed to prove the necessary animus possidendi to establish adverse possession; (3) medical records and expert opinion established that Madam Tang suffered delusional disorder from not later than 31 May 1995 until death in 2008 so s22 extended limitation; and (4) laches/acquiescence did not bar the claim where statutory limitation applied — therefore plaintiff entitled to possession and defendant's counterclaim dismissed.
27 May 2015

TANG PAT YOU v. LAU YET WAH, AMY

Citation

TANG PAT YOU v. LAU YET WAH, AMY
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ346/2014

The court found on the evidence that the plaintiff had continuous, exclusive factual possession and the requisite animus possidendi from March 1997 through March 2009; accordingly the defendant's registered title was extinguished by s17 Limitation Ordinance and the plaintiff is declared owner in possession, with costs to plaintiff.
11 Dec 2013

ZENG GUI MIN v. TSAI TIM YUEN AND OTHERS

Citation

ZENG GUI MIN v. TSAI TIM YUEN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP964/2013

Striking out application dismissed because, given the factual dispute over whether the original shares were held on trust for Access Tree and the interrelated issues affecting validity of the allotment, the 1st and 2nd Respondents are necessary parties under Order 15 rule 6(2) RHC; proposed amendments to plead a contractual/damage claim were refused for lack of particularity and failure to plead consideration, and therefore leave to amend was denied.
1 Nov 2013

LO MAN KAM v. LAW MAN WAI

Citation

LO MAN KAM v. LAW MAN WAI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA143/2010

On the balance of probabilities the court preferred Kam and Sim's evidence and contemporaneous documents: the deceased intended the transfers to Wai to be shared between Wai and Kam; the payments by Wai to Kam and Sim were repayments of that joint gift; accordingly Wai held funds on trust for Kam and Sim in respect of the sums at issue and Sim is the beneficial owner of the Properties; Kam is entitled to an account of the 6th Aunt's Gift and Wai's claim is dismissed.
17 Sept 2010

VINCENT ENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEN QIN BIAO AND ANOTHER

Citation

VINCENT ENG AND ANOTHER v. CHEN QIN BIAO AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2657/2007

The court found Chen failed to rebut the presumption that Info Fortune (legal owner) was also beneficial owner; Chen was an agent of Lee and sold shares and withdrew funds without authority, acting in breach of trust; accordingly the court declared 96,792,000 shares and the proceeds belonged to Info Fortune, ordered an account and tracing remedies, dismissed Chen's and Polaris' counterclaims and dismissed Lee's counterclaim.
29 Apr 2008

WU YIPING v. MAK YUK YEE CLARA AND ANOTHER

Citation

WU YIPING v. MAK YUK YEE CLARA AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1520/2004

The four documents must be construed together to give effect to the parties' common intention; the transaction was a sale for $2.5 million with a 12‑month buy‑back option, not an illegal loan under the Money Lenders Ordinance; Rich Prosper was not a lender and Clara Mak was not acting as a money lender or in concert with Rich Prosper; plaintiff defaulted and title validly transferred to the 1st defendant, who is the legal and beneficial owner and entitled to possession.
7 Dec 1994

HON PO SUN v. LAU NGAI

Citation

HON PO SUN v. LAU NGAI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV131/1994

The appeal is allowed and the trial judge's declaration that the parties were equal beneficial joint tenants is quashed because the judge failed to determine the parties' common intention at the time of acquisition and failed to assess the authenticity of the defendant's written declaration; reliance solely on post-breakdown mortgage payments was insufficient to support the declaration; matter remitted for a new trial.