Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Trusts

  • 17 Jul 2025

    LO FONG HUNG v. FUNG YUEN KWAN, VERONICA AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3101
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2219/2020

    The Summons for leave to intervene was dismissed because the intervention was unjustified, filed with inexcusable delay and risked derailing the Trial; the Intended Intervener failed to seek less disruptive alternatives (eg undertakings by correspondence); consequently the Intended Intervener was ordered to pay the 1st Respondent's costs of the Summons on an indemnity basis with a certificate for three counsel, taxed at HK$680,000 payable forthwith.

  • 30 Nov 2020

    CH v. TTHM

    Citation
    [2020] HKFC 236
    Court
    Family Court
    Case number
    FCMC8214/2011

    The court applied the principles of Order 24 RHC and the Civil Procedure commentary, held that parts of the applicant's schedule were overbroad or fishing and narrowed the summons: it ordered specific discovery of five defined sets of bank records (rental deposits and cheque deposits/withdrawals for specified accounts and defined date ranges relating to Chu Kee Building, Wah Hoi Mansion cheques, Unit AB of the Workshop, Unit 407 post-dated cheques and Unit 217 post-dated cheques) and refused discovery of the correspondence requests in paras (2)–(4) and the already produced declaration; costs…

  • 4 May 2018

    LEIBISH ASIA LTD v. R.M.S. GLOBAL GROUP LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFI 970
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA402/2018

    An interlocutory preservation order was justified because there was a serious issue to be tried over ownership/title, damages would not be adequate given the rarity of the diamonds and apparent inability of defendants to pay, no defence or appearance was advanced, and the balance of convenience favoured preservation of the assets.

  • 28 Jul 2017

    NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG

    Citation
    NG CHO CHU JUDY v. CHAN WING HUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV139/2016

    The Court of Appeal affirmed that section 36 of the District Court Ordinance, properly construed in its legislative and historical context, is jurisdiction-conferring so the District Court may hear pure title cases within the statutory rateable/annual value limit; on the merits the plaintiff established a prima facie case by the Deed and solicitor's contemporaneous affirmation and the defendant's account was not believable, so summary declaratory judgment recognizing the defendant as holding the Property on trust for the plaintiff and himself as joint tenants (each entitled to half) was uphel…

  • 9 Nov 2016

    LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS

    Citation
    LI CHEONG HING v. CHAN LOK AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3234/2015

    The Amended Statement of Claim was struck out as against the 3rd defendant because it constituted an abuse of process by collateral attack on possession orders and writs issued in DCMP; the correct forum for the plaintiff to assert his proprietary rights was by continuing to participate in the DCMP, not by instituting a separate High Court action.

  • 24 Nov 2014

    SZETO YUK LIN v. TSANG CHIU MO SAMUEL AND OTHERS

    Citation
    SZETO YUK LIN v. TSANG CHIU MO SAMUEL AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA2392/2008

    The court ordered the plaintiff to provide precise particulars as to the nature of the alleged HK$150,000,000 injection into CSFL and imposed an unless order that paragraph 3(2) be struck out if full particulars were not provided by 4pm on 15 December 2014; the court declined to press the plaintiff for further particulars where she stated inability and left such matters to trial, and refused to require defendants to answer the plaintiff's overly broad requests 3 and 4 while ordering defendants to provide further particulars to the plaintiff's other requests dated 4 November 2014 (except reque…

  • 20 Mar 2006

    TANG MIU WAN v. SUPER KING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    TANG MIU WAN v. SUPER KING INTERNATIONAL LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    District Court
    Case number
    DCCJ1935/2004

    The court found that on the assignment the legal interest passed to the Applicants and the vendor retained no beneficial interest in the Blue Portion nor was the Blue Portion held by the Applicants on trust for the vendor because the vendor only had a conditional undertaking to seek division from the District Lands Office; consequently the Blue Portion was not a chargeable interest under s.52AA and the Charging Order was discharged.

  • 4 Mar 2006

    WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS v. ZHAO KAI INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS

    Citation
    WONG KAM SAN AND OTHERS v. ZHAO KAI INVESTMENT LTD AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA1653/2004

    The defendants discharged the burden of proving that the 1st plaintiff is ordinarily resident outside Hong Kong and the plaintiffs produced no affidavit to contradict this. The court found the plaintiffs' claimed assets were unreliable or encumbered (self valuation of properties and uncertain value of the mine). Balancing the factors and the existence of the properties as partial security for an undertaking, the court exercised its discretion under Order 23 rule 1 to order security for costs in the sum of HK$1.2 million to be deposited within 14 days, failing which the action as against the 1…

  • 31 Oct 2001

    RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. (in Liquidation)

    Citation
    RE C.A. PACIFIC FINANCE LTD. (in Liquidation)
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCW37/1998

    Where clients have signed a valid Memorandum of Deposit creating a continuing charge, the Memorandum is effective to classify them as margin clients and to vest disposed shares as charged assets rather than client property; clients who affirm they did not sign and for whom there is no contemporaneous evidence of a charge must be reclassified as non-margin clients; allegations of misrepresentation or non use of facilities do not alter proprietary effect of a valid signed charge and relief for misrepresentation lies in damages against the company's estate; regulatory compensation policy does no…

  • 5 Feb 2001

    CHANG SHUN TAK v. LEUNG SUN FAT AND OTHERS

    Citation
    CHANG SHUN TAK v. LEUNG SUN FAT AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA13809/1997

    Particulars were required because the pleadings and the Letter of Attorney left unclear whether Mori Junior held legal title as personal representative or as beneficiary and whether the plaintiff was suing as equitable owner or as agent of Mori Junior; without those particulars the 2nd defendant could not know the case to meet nor who was the proper trustee to join, and any declaration would not bind the legal owner unless joined.