In Chan Sang v Chan Kwok ([2015] HKEC 822, CFI) title to shop premises was in the joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant (who were brothers). The legal title was held by them as tenants in common in equal shares. The plaintiff successfully claimed to be the sole beneficial owner. The court made a declaration to this effect and ordered the defendant to convey his half share to the plaintiff. The defendant’s name was on the title deeds because of an agreement between the parties and their father. The father made a loan to the plaintiff to allow him to purchase the shop and the defendant’s name was on the title deeds as a form of security. The agreement was that the defendant would give up his share once the loan had been fully repaid. The plaintiff had fully repaid the loan and had also made all the payments due to a bank under the mortgage that had been entered into at the time of acquisition. The defendant made no payments that were referable to the property. The plaintiff had established that he was sole beneficial owner under either a common intention constructive trust or a resulting trust ([76]).
The defendant, basing himself on Laskar v Laskar, argued that the common intention constructive trust had no application here and applied only in the ‘domestic consumer’ context. Anderson Chow J. rejected this. Laskar was, rather, authority for the proposition that the Stack v Dowden presumption of equality in joint name cases only applied to the ‘domestic consumer’ context. In fact, the case goes to show that it is difficult to draw a dividing line between the domestic and consumer contexts.
Michael Lower
