7 Nov 2022
葉偉鴻及另一人 對 葉偉霖
- Citation
- [2022] HKCA 1656
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Case number
- CACV40/2022
The appeal is dismissed because the trial judge's primary factual findings — that the 2013 transfer was not a legally enforceable conditional gift, that only the first plaintiff succeeded on a misrepresentation claim (not the second), and that the second plaintiff was entitled to repayment of identified joint account funds — were supported by evidence and not plainly wrong; accordingly rescission and restitution orders at first instance stand subject to the adjustments made by the appellate court (nominal HKD1 awarded for occupation rent).