Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Presumption of resulting trust

Legal area

Court

2 Sept 2024

POON LOI TAK the Administrator of the late POON NUEN Deceased v. POON LOI CHEUNG DESMOND

Citation

[2024] HKCA 796
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV32/2023

The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial judge's factual finding that Father never intended an inter vivos gift of the beneficial interest in the joint accounts; having made positive findings on Father's intention based on contemporaneous and circumstantial evidence and adverse credibility findings against the defendant, there was no need to rely on legal presumptions; therefore the monies vested in Father's estate and the defendant held withdrawn funds on trust and must repay them.
17 Apr 2024

ALDL v. FTFC AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKFC 13
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC13698/2013

On the balance of probabilities the judge accepted H's and R2's evidence that transfers from H to R2 were gifts and there was no common intention or sufficient detriment to establish a constructive trust or a resulting trust in respect of the landed properties; R2 failed to discharge the burden to prove a 50% beneficial interest in TF Co. Ltd.; however certain transfers totalling HKD7,500,000 were treated as dispositions by H intended to defeat W's claim and were set aside under s.17 MPPO and a further shortfall of HKD1,804,935.67 of Unit Trust Funds was ordered returned to H (or added back t…
10 Nov 2023

HUI TSZ KIN v. NG KA YAN aka NG KA YUN KAREN

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1586
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ1932/2023

All money in the joint account was provided by the Plaintiff, giving rise to the presumption of resulting trust which the Defendant failed to rebut: the Alleged Representation was ambiguous, unparticularised and implausible; estoppel and waiver were not properly pleaded; the proposed amendment was late and deficient; there is no triable issue and summary judgment for the Plaintiff is appropriate.
12 Nov 2020

LAI HON TIM v. LAI TSZ NANG WILSON

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA744/2018

On the evidence and inherent probabilities the Plaintiff funded the purchase entirely; the Bank required a co-mortgagor so the Defendant's name was added for that purpose; the Defendant knew and accepted that the beneficial interest belonged to the Plaintiff; accordingly a common intention constructive trust arose such that the Defendant held his legal interest on trust for the Plaintiff, and the declarations and transfer order sought were granted.
13 Apr 2018

CYBERLAND (CHINA) LTD v. ZHANG WEI BING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCA 207
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV266/2015

The Court refused leave to appeal and refused a stay because the questions relied upon were fact specific and not of general or public importance, the plaintiff's resulting trust case was not pleaded as independent and was rejected on the facts, reliance on Tribe v. Tribe and Tinsley v. Milligan was misplaced in the factual matrix, and the intended appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success; accordingly the Payment Out Order was not stayed and costs were awarded to the 1st defendant.
13 Sept 2017

KAN WING YEE WENDY v. ROH JULIE KIM

Citation

KAN WING YEE WENDY v. ROH JULIE KIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP352/2017

The vendor's statutory declaration from Yeung together with strong circumstantial pointers (small proportional interest, prolonged inaction by the nominator, successive transfers) rebutted the presumption of resulting trust beyond reasonable doubt; alternatively, any equitable claim arising from the 1979 nomination would in any event have been time-barred against successors in title by operation of the Limitation Ordinance as construed in light of Peconic, so there was no real risk to the purchaser and the vendor has shown good title.
28 Feb 2014

SCT v. CH AND ANOTHER

Citation

SCT v. CH AND ANOTHER
Court

Family Court
Case number

FCMC15783/2011

Court rejected the Father and husband's evidence that the Father was sole beneficial owner and/or that the husband was merely a nominee; the presumption of advancement was not rebutted in the Fathers' favour and the evidence supported that the husband was beneficially entitled to the business and disputed properties; applying s.7 MPPO and the sharing principle the court found surplus assets existed, treated the non‑matrimonial/unilateral assets as warranting departure from equal division and awarded the wife a lump sum to achieve a clean break together with costs against the husband and Fathe…
30 Jan 2014

CHU CHUNG MING v. NGAI SAU WAH

Citation

CHU CHUNG MING v. NGAI SAU WAH
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV16/2013

Appellant failed to discharge the burden to prove an express or resulting trust: (1) absence of contemporaneous documentary or reliable audio evidence of any express trust; (2) transfers traced to OD accounts used for dual personal and business purposes, which rebut the presumption of resulting trust; and (3) trial judge accepted respondent and other witnesses as credible and rejected appellant's inconsistent evidence — therefore appeal dismissed.
29 Jan 2013

ROSE PALACE LTD v. JUNG CHRISTOPHER LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

ROSE PALACE LTD v. JUNG CHRISTOPHER LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1976/2012

The court held that the solicitor's two statutory declarations, reinforced by Wu's long inaction (over 24 years), rebutted the presumption of resulting trust such that the plaintiff satisfied the title requisition; alternatively, even if the declarations were insufficient, any claim by Wu would be barred by s.7(2) of the Limitation Ordinance because the plaintiff was not a trustee within s.20(1)(b) prior to its purchase and the 12-year limitation had expired.
10 Jan 2012

D v. W AND OTHERS

Citation

D v. W AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2480/2011

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal impermissibly sought to challenge primary findings of fact, including that monies advanced by the wife's parents were loans and that the transfer to Fortune Wealth settled those loans; there was evidence to support those findings and no basis to conclude they were plainly wrong, so the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and leave was refused; costs were ordered and procedural restrictions on reconsideration imposed.