District Court applied the landmark Court of Appeal decision in 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒕 𝑰𝒏𝒗𝒆𝒔𝒕𝒎𝒆𝒏𝒕 𝑳𝒕𝒅 [2023] HKCA 479 (which found in favour of the UK Supreme Court’s approach in 𝑷𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒍 𝒗 𝑴𝒊𝒓𝒛𝒂 [2017] AC 467 instead of the “reliance” test under 𝑻𝒊𝒏𝒔𝒍𝒆𝒚 𝒗 𝑴𝒊𝒍𝒍𝒊𝒈𝒂𝒏 [1994] 1 AC 340) and entered judgement in favour of the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff, who was an ex-girlfriend of D2, contributed to the renovation and mortgage payment of a public housing estate (“the Flat”) purchased under the “Green Form” mechanism in the name of D1, who was the paternal grandmother of D2 (“the Deceased”). By a will, the Deceased left the Flat to D2. The Plaintiff commenced the present action on the basis of, inter alia, purchase money resulting trust and unjust enrichment.

Deputy District Judge Frances Lok considered the Defendants’ version to be “unreliable”: §25(1), “entirely incredible”: §31(5), and “incoherent [and] inconsistent”: §36(1). Having considered the evidence unfolded, the Judge found that the Deceased held 28.608% of the Flat on resulting trust for the Plaintiff: §43. After giving due consideration of 𝑴𝒐𝒏𝒂𝒕 (which affirms 𝑷𝒂𝒕𝒆𝒍 𝒗 𝑴𝒊𝒓𝒛𝒂 [2017] AC 467), the Judge ruled that the Plaintiff’s unjust enrichment claim should be allowed even if the resulting trust claim fails: §85.

Simon So represented the plaintiff (assigned by the Legal Aid Department) in the 4-day trial as sole advocate. The Full Judgement was published on: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=153871&currpage=T