|
Press Summary (English)
Press Summary (Chinese)
FACV Nos. 9 and 10 of 2023
[2024] HKCFA 15
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
FINAL APPEAL NOS. 9 and 10 OF 2023 (CIVIL)
(ON APPEAL FROM CACV NOS. 346 and 337 OF 2022)
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
|
|
CHINA LIFE TRUSTEES LIMITED
|
Plaintiff
|
|
|
|
(Respondent)
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
CHINA ENERGY RESERVE AND CHEMICALS GROUP OVERSEAS COMPANY LIMITED
|
1
st
Defendant
(1
st
Appellant)
|
|
|
CHINA ENERGY RESERVE AND CHEMICALS GROUP COMPANY LIMITED
|
2
nd
Defendant
|
|
|
(中国国储能源化工集团股份公司)
|
|
|
|
and
|
|
|
|
BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS TRUSTEE LIMITED
|
Interested
Party
|
|
|
BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS
|
Garnishee
|
|
|
AD HOC COMMITTEE
|
Intervener
|
|
|
(comprising CMB Wing Lung Bank Ltd and The Export-Import Bank of China)
|
(2
nd
Appellant)
|
________________________
(HEARD TOGETHER)
|
Before:
|
Chief Justice Cheung, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Fok PJ, Mr Justice Lam PJ and Mr Justice Gummow NPJ
|
|
Date of Hearing:
|
3 May 2024
|
|
Date of Judgment:
|
14 June 2024
|
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Chief Justice Cheung:
1.
I have had the advantage of reading in draft the judgment of Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ and that of Mr Justice Gummow NPJ, and agree that these appeals should be allowed for the detailed reasons they give. Since we are differing from a very careful judgment of the Court of Appeal on an important topic of some practical significance as is illustrated by the outcome of these appeals, I would add a few words of my own.
2.
It is now firmly established that subject to any special agreement, where a transferor transfers property (usually money) to a transferee to be applied for a specific purpose
and that purpose only
, such that the same is
not
at the free disposal of the transferee, a trust of the property arises, with the transferee holding the same in favour of the transferor subject to the power or duty of the former to apply the property for the specific purpose.
3.
This type of trust may arise under different factual situations but its essence remains that just described. A trust of this type is generally known as a
Quistclose
trust, following the House of Lords decision in
Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd
[1]
, although a generally accepted judicial analysis of its nature – a resulting trust arising upon the transfer of property – did not emerge until Lord Millett’s
locus classicus
in
Twinsectra v Yardley
[2]
more than three decades later. It is fair to say that the true nature of a
Quistclose
trust and the attractions of and difficulties with different analyses of its nature have, from day one and even unt
| 
Back
