Read the full judgment text of CACV 000213/2006 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 May 2007 before Tang VP, Cheung JA, A Cheung J.
Charity – public charitable trust – advancement of religion – whether Lin Fat Tong (蓮花洞), an unincorporated Taoist religious association established in Tuen Mun in the early 1930s, was constituted as a public charity – whether a place of public worship for Guan Yin built from donations raised across multiple villages satisfies the test of public charitable purpose – categories of gifts to unincorporated associations under Neville Estates Ltd v Madden – whether donations intended as gift to quasi-corporate entity – ancillarity of accommodation of keeper and helpers, provision of vegetarian meals and installation of ancestral tablets – whether subsequent conduct of trustees can convert a properly constituted charitable trust into a private trust – evidence from six 1932-1933 donation books soliciting contributions from 'gentlemen and benevolent persons of all villages' across at least six villages – Locus standi – whether applicant as former co-signatory of the 3rd respondent's bank account has standing to assert charitable trust over Tong's funds – Ip Cheung-kwok v Ip Siu-bun applied – whether co-trustee is a 'third party' for these purposes – Costs – whether judge erred in depriving successful respondents of costs – Jones v McKie – judge entitled to take into account the genesis of the dispute and the conduct of the 1st and 2nd respondents in transferring the Tong's funds to their personal accounts – 1st respondent's unsupported allegation that Lau Hing-lin was engaged in business treated as highly improbable – Outcome: appeal allowed, cross-appeal dismissed, with order for disclosure and deposit of trust monies with the Registrar and liberty to apply on remaining relief.
Legal issues: Whether Lin Fat Tong is a public charitable trust established in the 1930s · Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the proceedings · Whether the learned judge's costs order depriving the successful respondents of costs should be set aside
Outcome: CACV 213/2006: appeal allowed with costs here and below. CACV 265/2006: cross-appeal dismissed with costs. An order was made in terms of para. 21(a) of the originating summons (disclosure and deposit of money with the Registrar), with liberty to apply in relation to sub-paras (b), (c) and (d) and generally.
Cites 2 cases