Read the full judgment text of HCA 537/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of First Instance judgment was delivered on 23 October 2020 before Coleman J.
Property law – beneficial ownership of jointly held property – common intention constructive trust – whether binding agreement or common intention that one party holds interest on trust for the other pending marriage – resulting trust – whether section 23 of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance applies – Stack v Dowden presumption that equity follows the law – cohabiting unmarried couple – boyfriend/girlfriend relationship – TM Property purchased in joint names funded entirely by plaintiff – defendant unemployed and made no financial contribution – plaintiff placed HOS Property on market in late February 2013 to purchase private property near defendant's mother in Tuen Mun – PSPA signed by plaintiff alone on 3 November 2013 and amended on 4 November 2013 to add defendant as joint purchaser – plaintiff alleges oral agreement/common intention on 3 November 2013 that defendant would return her interest if marriage did not occur by end of 2014 – defendant alleges unconditional gift of 50% share made out of love – court accepted plaintiff's version and rejected defendant's – first issue: whether agreement or common intention constructive trust arose – held yes – three elements of common intention, detrimental reliance, and unconscionability satisfied (Luo Xing Juan Angela v Estate of Hui Shui See Willy) – express discussion evidence supports inference of agreement (Primecredit Ltd v Yeung Chun Pang Barry) – second issue: whether s.23 LARCO bars claim – held no – plaintiff not enforcing contract of marriage or claiming breach of promise of marriage (Ian Hung Wai v Cheung Sau Kuen distinguished) – third issue: whether defendant's share was an outright gift – held no – clear evidence required to displace presumption that equity follows the law (Stack v Dowden) – defendant made no contribution and plaintiff unlikely to gift half of property without commitment to marry – defendant found evasive, inconsistent, and chronologically unreliable – contemporaneous documents, including defendant's solicitors' letter of 13 February 2017, did not assert any gift – plaintiff's claim succeeded, with declaration of trust and order for transfer – counterclaim dismissed – defendant to pay plaintiff's costs.
Legal issues: Whether an agreement or common intention constructive trust arose making the defendant hold her interest on trust for the plaintiff · Whether section 23 of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance bars the plaintiff's claim · Whether the defendant's 50% interest in the TM Property was an outright gift from the plaintiff
Outcome: Judgment for the plaintiff; declaration granted that the defendant holds her title in the TM Property on trust for the plaintiff; defendant ordered to transfer her title to the plaintiff; counterclaim dismissed; defendant to pay the plaintiff's costs.
Cited by 27 cases · Cites 1 case