Read the full judgment text of CACV 198/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 9 July 2018 before Lam VP, Barma JA, Poon JA.
Civil appeal – property law – resulting trust – corporate context – property purchased in the name of a company with funds provided by shareholder – whether resulting trust arose – Civil appeal from DCCJ No 2516 of 2013 – Plaintiff bought Property from South Sea Holdings Limited – 1st defendant was shareholder of South Sea and contributed HK$558,534 to purchase price – trial judge found 1st defendant had 30.77% beneficial interest under resulting trust – whether judge erred in applying resulting trust – starting point in corporate context is that both legal and beneficial interest vest in the company – shareholder bears burden to rebut inference by proving intention at time of purchase to vest beneficial interest in him personally – judge incorrectly applied non-corporate presumption of resulting trust – judge failed to assess all circumstances to determine whether 1st defendant had rebutted inference – judge's finding of resulting trust based on misapprehension of law and cannot stand – Re Fortune King Trading Limited applied – Luo Xing Juan v Estate of Hui Shui See applied – Westdeutsche Landesbank v Islington LBC distinguished (non-corporate context) – appeal allowed – judgment and costs order below set aside – matter remitted for retrial on issue of whether resulting trust arose, bearing in mind 1st defendant's admitted contributions of HK$558,534 – plaintiff to have costs of appeal (nisi) – costs below in costs of retrial (nisi) – 1st defendant's costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations (nisi).
Legal issues: Application of resulting trust principles in a corporate context
Outcome: Plaintiff's appeal allowed; the judgment and costs order below are set aside; matter remitted to the Judge for a retrial on the issue of whether the resulting trust as pleaded by the 1st defendant arose.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 1 case