Read the full judgment text of FCMC 10082/2016 on BabelCite. This Family Court judgment was delivered on 22 March 2019 before Deputy District Judge Doris To.
Matrimonial proceedings – ancillary relief – preliminary issues – beneficial ownership of landed properties – constructive trust – fiduciary duty trust – express agreement – common intention – resulting trust – Legal Aid Ordinance – costs – District Court – G/F Property – 1/F Property – Yuen Long – 1st Intervener – 2nd Intervener – Deceased – Husband – Wife – 1st Intervener sole beneficial owner of G/F Property – 2nd Intervener sole beneficial owner of 1/F Property – Wife pays costs on party and party basis – 1st Intervener funded purchase and mortgage of G/F Property – Deceased intended 1/F Property for 2nd Intervener – Credibility of witnesses assessed – Husband lacked financial capacity for G/F Property mortgage – Deceased reconciled with Husband before death – 1st Intervener and Madam Wong entitled to life interest in 1/F Property – Costs order nisi – Legal Aid Ordinance s.17 – Bhura v Bhura – Liu Wai Keung v. Liu Wai Man – Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry – Gissing v Gissing – Jones v Kernott – Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset – De Bruyne v De Bruyne – Yang Foo Oi, Wai Wai Chen – Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd – HSYC v CLTK – Harwood v Harwood – Stack v Dowden – The Court determined preliminary issues regarding the beneficial ownership of two properties in Yuen Long in ancillary relief proceedings between the Petitioner (Wife) and Respondent (Husband). The 1st Intervener (Husband's father) claimed sole beneficial ownership of the G/F Property, while the 2nd Intervener (Husband's daughter) claimed beneficial ownership of the 1/F Property based on an assignment by the Deceased (Husband's sister). The Court found that the 1st Intervener funded the entire purchase price and mortgage repayments of the G/F Property, establishing a common intention constructive trust. The Court also found that the Deceased intended the 1/F Property for the 2nd Intervener, creating a fiduciary duty trust on the Husband. The Court assessed the credibility of five witnesses, finding the Wife's evidence incredible and inconsistent, while preferring the evidence of the 1st Intervener, 2nd Intervener, Husband, and Chan. The Court granted declarations that the 1st Intervener is the sole beneficial owner of the G/F Property and the 2nd Intervener is the sole beneficial owner of the 1/F Property subject to the life interest of the 1st Intervener and Madam Wong. The Court ordered the Wife to pay costs of the 1st Intervener, 2nd Intervener and Husband on a party and party basis. The Court considered Section 17 of the Legal Aid Ordinance regarding costs on common fund basis but declined to award indemnity costs. The Court applied principles from Bhura v Bhura, Liu Wai Keung v. Liu Wai Man, Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry, Gissing v Gissing, Jones v Kernott, Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset, De Bruyne v De Bruyne, Yang Foo Oi, Wai Wai Chen, Hui Cheung Fai v Daiwa Development Ltd, HSYC v CLTK, Harwood v Harwood, and Stack v Dowden. The Court found the Husband lacked financial capacity to afford the G/F Property mortgage repayments. The Court found the Deceased reconciled with the Husband before her death in July 2007. The Court found the 1st Intervener and Madam Wong entitled to exclusive occupation of the 1/F Property during their lifetime. The Court found the Wife's case shaky without a firm base and her evidence devoid of logic. The Court found the 1st Intervener proved his financial ability to pay for the mortgage. The Court found the 1st Intervener paid the redemption sum of HK$360,000 in 2006. The Court found the Deceased assigned the 1/F Property to the Husband at no cost. The Court found the 1/F Property was mortgaged with HSBC in January 2011. The Court found the 1st Intervener and Madam Wong provided funds to redeem the mortgage in August 2014. The Court found the Husband admitted breach of duties as trustee when mortgaging the 1/F Property. The Court found the 2nd Intervener turned 18 in 2015. The Court found the Husband did not transfer title to the 2nd Intervener. The Court found the 2nd Intervener trusted her father. The Court found reasonable explanation for inaction. The Court found the Wife's case on merits bad and poor. The Court found no unreasonable conduct on part of the Wife. The Court found costs should not be on common fund or indemnity basis. The Court found costs order nisi that the Wife do pay costs of the 1st Intervener, 2nd Intervener and Husband on party and party basis. The Court found certificate for Counsel. The Court found costs to be taxed if not agreed. The Court found the Wife's own costs to be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations. The Court found nisi order shall become absolute unless application within 14 days to vary. The Court found the 1st Intervener and Madam Wong entitled to exclusive occupation of the 1/F Property during their lifetime. The Court found the 1st Intervener is sole beneficial owner of the G/F Property. The Court found the Husband holds his half share in the G/F Property on trust for the 1st Intervener. The Court found the 2nd Intervener is sole beneficial owner of the 1/F Property subject to life interest. The Court found the Husband is holding the 1/F Property on trust for the 2nd Intervener. The Court found the 1st Intervener and Madam Wong entitled to exclusive occupation of the 1/F Property during their lifetime. The Court found declaration granted. The Court found relief granted. The Court found decision delivered on 22 March 2019. The Court found hearing dates 8, 9, 10, 11 and 16 January 2019. The Court found Deputy District Judge Doris To. The Court found District Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. The Court found Matrimonial Causes No. 10082 of 2016. The Court found FCMC 10082/2016. The Court found [2019] HKFC 75.
Legal issues: G/F Property beneficial ownership · 1/F Property beneficial ownership
Outcome: Declarations granted regarding beneficial ownership of G/F Property and 1/F Property; Costs order made against Petitioner.
Cited by 1 case · Cites 3 cases