Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Oral trust

  • 2 Apr 2025

    SIN KWOK LAM v. CHAN TING LAI

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1435
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA829/2022

    The appeal is allowed because the defendant failed to show this was a plain and obvious case for striking out; issue estoppel did not apply because the plaintiff was not a party to HCA 477/2022 and privity was not established; there was no clear and obvious Henderson abuse; and significant factual and credibility disputes required trial and live evidence rather than summary determination on affidavits.

  • 14 Jun 2023

    CHEUNG YUK YING ENGRACIA v. MACGREGOR ISABELLA

    Citation
    [2023] HKCA 749
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV120/2022

    Having evaluated all evidence including the parties' relationship, the plaintiff's non‑disclosure of the shares in her Form E, the absence of a pattern of dividend payments to the plaintiff despite substantial dividends paid to the defendant, the limited probative value of the 2015 recovery of share certificates and the credibility assessments of witnesses, the judge's finding that the defendant discharged the burden of proving an outright gift was a conclusion reasonably open on the evidence; the Court of Appeal refused to disturb that finding and dismissed the appeal.

  • 8 Sept 2022

    WANG RONGAN v. SILVER INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 2586
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1425/2015

    The court found the Plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the pleaded 1st Trust, 2nd Trust and DT Trust because there was insufficient evidence of the requisite certainty of intention, subject matter and objects; the 2nd Defendant's signatures did not objectively authenticate the documents as declarations of trust; contemporaneous documents and conduct (including listing materials and draft sale documentation) supported the conclusion that distributions were bonuses not recognition of proprietary rights; accordingly claims for proprietary relief, breach of fiduciary duties and dishonest…

  • 22 Nov 2019

    KU MING FONG KATHERINE AND OTHERS v. CHU CHIA CHIN CHARLES

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 2849
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1757/2018

    The Judge allowed most of the Master's ordered particulars as they were relevant and necessary to limit the generality of the Defence and to enable preparation and discovery; however particulars that effectively sought specific discovery or matters irrelevant to pleaded issues were disallowed (notably requests seeking employment terms not pleaded, specific sale documentation and enquiries beyond whether the 4th Plaintiff was informed). The court required deletion of open-ended phrases ('including but not limited to') and confined particulars to matters necessary for fair disposal.

  • 2 Oct 2009

    CHEUNG MAN KWONG THOMAS v. MOK CHUN BOR

    Citation
    CHEUNG MAN KWONG THOMAS v. MOK CHUN BOR
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ2133/2007

    The judge found Mr Mok acted unreasonably in the conduct of the defence, unnecessarily increasing costs; under Order 62 r6(2) and s53(1) the Court exercised its discretion to order that Mr Mok pay the plaintiff's costs but may only recover 50% from the estate, with the remaining 50% to be borne personally, and that 50% of the trial costs be taxed on an indemnity basis.

  • 29 Apr 2009

    YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS

    Citation
    YIP LAI FONG AND ANOTHER v. SIN TUNG HING AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1282/2003

    The court affirmed the Master’s discretionary decision to stay the counterclaim pending completion of the retrial in the PRC because, although Hong Kong had strong connections to the dispute, the advanced state of the PRC proceedings and the parties' prior choice to litigate in the PRC outweighed the forum non conveniens arguments; the stay was therefore appropriate and temporary.

  • 30 Oct 2002

    PUN KAN TAI v. WONG YUE SHUN

    Citation
    PUN KAN TAI v. WONG YUE SHUN
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ13222/2001

    Because the claim depends on disputed facts (an alleged oral trust, origins of the down payment and implications of s5 CPO) and the defendant only later obtained representation and put forward a plausible defence, the court exercised its discretion under Order 19 Rule 7 to refuse judgment on the pleadings and allowed the defendant to defend.