Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Third party interests

  • 7 May 2021

    趙 對 石及另一人

    Citation
    [2021] HKFC 80
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC10654/2016

    On the preliminary issues the court found the husband failed to establish any proprietary beneficial interest in the Tai Po property: the husband funded at most HKD4,000,000 towards the purchase (not the HKD6,000,000 alleged) and did not prove a common intention or written declaration to displace legal title; the Hang Seng account was held by the son and, although substantial deposits (approximately HKD2,800,000) were made by the husband, those monies were treated as gifts/parental assistance rather than conferring on the husband a proprietary interest; the alleged HKD500,000 and HKD100,000 w…

  • 16 Jan 2019

    YMKA v. YSM

    Citation
    [2019] HKFC 15
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC9579/2017

    Relief from sanction was refused because although the default was not intentional, the applicant failed to provide a full, clear and satisfactory explanation and showed a loose attitude in seeking indulgence; the breach was of an unless order and the refusal was not disproportionate as the respondent's available assets on her side of the balance sheet were sufficient to compensate the applicant, so dismissing the s.17 pursuit does not deprive the applicant of effective relief.

  • 2 Jun 2017

    SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN

    Citation
    SARAS GOPI v. BINA DEEGAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA3075/2015

    Form CH1 charge, with a minor amendment replacing "upon completion of the trial of [the] action" by "following the conclusion of the action", together with conditions that (1) any occupant (Amar) executes a deed of postponement within 28 days, (2) the plaintiff files an affidavit denying family arrangements which would jeopardise the charge, and (3) the plaintiff undertakes to pay enforcement costs on an indemnity basis, provides sufficient and reasonably enforceable security for the defendant's costs up to $2,000,000 until the action is set down for trial; accordingly the proposed charge is…

  • 22 Jun 2001

    LEONART LTD. v. TURN FINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.

    Citation
    LEONART LTD. v. TURN FINE DEVELOPMENT LTD.
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP432/2001

    The judge held that a liquidator's sale to himself is not equivalent to a mortgagee selling to himself and is voidable rather than absolutely void; on the facts the 1975 assignment was made openly with required filings and distributions and there has been long acquiescence and intervening third party interests, so the risk of a successful challenge is remote and fanciful; accordingly the defendant proved beyond reasonable doubt that the title is good and the court declared the title good.