Posts Tagged ‘valuation’

Non-registration of trust. Dispositions to defraud creditors

June 1, 2016

In Goldfame Consultants Ltd v Tse Sai Ming ([2016] HKEC 1113, CFI) TCS agreed to sell land to Goldfame. The contract provided for the payment of deposits and then for the payment of the balance of the purchase price to be made on 14 August 2006. The contract provided that the assignment of the land would take place within 7 days of receipt of a letter from the Buildings Department approving the proposed site formation plan or at such other time as the purchaser might specify. The balance of the purchase price was duly paid on 14 August 2006 but the approval had not been received and the assignment did not take place. Instead, TCS executed Declarations of Trust under which he held the land on trust for Goldfame. TCS also nominated Goldfame as attorney to act for him in relation to the land. Neither the contract nor any of the other documents were registered with the Land Registry.

TCS died intestate in 2010 and TSM was granted letters of administration of his estate. TSM sold the land to H. Goldfame brought an action against TSM for breach of contract seeking damages or the return of the price paid to TCS. It also sought a declaration that TSM held the land on trust for Goldfame. It sought to have the sale to H set aside under section 60 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance.

There was no answer to the breach of contract claim and TSM was ordered to repay the purchase price with interest. It was accepted on all sides that the sale contract and the declarations of trust were void as against H since they had not been registered and there was no reason to doubt his good faith. Section 3(2) of the Land Registration Ordinance took effect.

Goldfame was forced to rely on section 60 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance. In Tradepower (Holdings) Ltd (in liquidation) v Tradepower (Hong Kong) Ltd, Ribeiro PJ  said that ‘where the disposition was made for valuable consideration, or where the disponor is not insolvent or where the disposition does not deplete the fund potentially available to creditors, an actual intent to defraud creditors must be shown as an inference properly to be drawn on the available evidence before s. 60 is engaged.’ (at [88]). The sale to H was not at an undervalue, nor was there any intention to defraud creditors ([94]). The claim against H failed.

In commenting on the expert evidence as to the market value of the property at the time of the sale to H, Recorder Coleman SC expressed his preference for valuation methods based on direct comparables where available. The subject matter of the transaction (undeveloped rural land where there was no guarantee that the approvals needed for development would be obtained) was somewhat out of the ordinary and so indices looking at the property market as a whole were unhelpful. Valuations based on the residual method involved too many assumptions to be as useful as direct comparables.

Michael Lower

Common intention constructive trust: valuation in sole name cases where there is no actual agreement as to how ownership is shared

February 17, 2015

In Graham-York v York ([2015] EWCA Civ 72, CA (Eng)) the English Court of Appeal looked at the approach to be taken to the valuation of an interest under a common intention constructive trust where title was in the sole name of one of the parties and there was no evidence of a common intention as to how the beneficial ownership was to be divided between the parties. Here a couple had co-habited for over forty years and had two children (one of whom was brought up by them and another by a relative). The man had provided nearly all of the family’s financial resources from the various businesses that he ran.

At first instance, the court found that there was evidence of a common intention that his partner (Miss Graham-York) should have an interest in the family home given her financial contribution to the family income before and at the time of the purchase of the property. The court also found that there was no express agreement as to the share that Miss Graham-York should have and that a 25% interest in the property would be a fair reflection of her financial and non-financial contributions over the years.

Miss Graham-York appealed against this finding. She argued that where there was no evidence as to a common intention concerning the size of her share, the court should take fairness as the guide to what they must reasonably be taken to have intended. Her initial and ongoing financial contributions, the length of the co-habitation and her contribution to the bringing-up of her daughter were each, she argued, factors pointing towards equal beneficial ownership ([18]).

Tomlinson LJ gave the principal judgment. He pointed to the joint judgment of Lord Walker and Lady Hale in Jones v Kernott as ‘the most authoritative modern guidance as to the proper approach in cases of this sort’ ([20]). While the search was primarily for the parties’ actual shared intentions, there were two situations in which this was not the case. The first of these was the situation in which the presumed resulting trust operated. The second, relevant here, involved cases, ‘where it is clear that the beneficial interests are to be shared, but it is impossible to divine a common intention as to the proportions in which they are to be shared.’ Here, ‘the court is driven to impute an intention to the parties which they may never have had.’ (Jones v Kernott, [31]).

Tomlinson LJ went on to comment on the scope of the enquiry as to fairness in these circumstances. The court must do what is fair having regard to the whole course of dealing in relation to the property (Jones v Kernott, [51]). The court ‘is not concerned with some form of redistributive justice’; so, here, the abuse that Miss Graham-York had suffered during her long relationship was not a relevant factor (Graham-York v York, [22]).

There is no presumption of equality of interests in sole name cases, even where the other party has made a substantial contribution. (Graham-York v York [25]).The first instance judge had identified the appropriate legal principles and applied them correctly. Miss Graham-York’s appeal was dismissed.

Michael Lower