RE WONG YU LEUNG

HCB 6686/2004

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS NO 6686 OF 2004

____________________

____________________

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

1. There is before this court an application by the Trustees of the property of Wong Yu Leung (“Bankrupt”) for an order for sale under section 6 of the Partition Ordinance in respect of the property known as Flat 19, 31/F, Hin Hing House, Block 4, Hin Keng Estate, 69 Che Kung Miu Road, Shatin, New Territories (“Property”).

2. The Property is in a public housing estate.  At first, it was rented by the Hong Kong Housing Authority to the Respondent, Madam Lam Siu Chun (“Madam Lam”).  On 30 August 2000, the Property was assigned into the joint names of Madam Lam and the Bankrupt.  The consideration for the assignment was HK$159,400. 

3. Madam Lam opposed the application on the ground that it was she who had paid for the entirety of the purchase price of the Property and that the Bankrupt, her youngest son, had paid nothing.  The Bankrupt also admitted that he had paid nothing for the purchase of the Property.

4. The first issue in the present case is whether the Bankrupt has any beneficial interest in the Property. If not, that is the end of the Trustees’ application.

5. Madam Lam testified in court today.  I find her a truthful witness.  Her evidence is corroborated by her Hang Seng Bank passbook, which account was in her sole name.  The passbook reveals that on 21 August 2000, she withdrew HK$156,900 from her account to purchase a cashier order.  21 August 2000 was less than 10 days before the deed of assignment in respect of the Property.  Prima facie, money in Madam Lam’s bank account was her own money.  I do not see why Madam Lam has to satisfy the Trustees the source of the money in her own bank account.

6. I accept Madam Lam’s evidence that it was she who used her own money to pay for the Property, and that it was never her intention to give the Property or any share thereof to the Bankrupt.  In other words, I accept it was her intention to keep all beneficial interest in the Property to herself.  At the time of the purchase, her husband suggested that she should name one of their sons as a joint owner of the Property so as to avoid the problems associated with having to change the name of the registered owner should Madam Lam pass away.  As her eldest son declined to be named a joint owner, she then named the Bankrupt instead. 

7. The Bankrupt also testified in court today.  He was born in 1965.  He admitted he had paid nothing towards the purchase of the Property. He also told this court that in 2000, he worked in a hotel earning approximately HK$9,000-odd and he had little savings.  He further admitted that he held his share of the Property on trust for Madam Lam.  I find him a truthful witness.  His evidence is corroborated by a declaration he made in June 2004 in which he said he held his share of the Property on trust for Madam Lam.

8. In these circumstances, I am satisfied that Madam Lam has discharged the burden of showing the Bankrupt has no beneficial interest in the Property.  I therefore dismiss the Trustees’ application.

9. I am inclined to order costs be to Madam Lam, to be taxed if not agreed and paid out of the Bankrupt’s estate.  It is Madam Lam who is here to discharge the burden of showing the Bankrupt has no beneficial interest in the Property.  She has succeeded and costs should follow the event, with certificate for Counsel.