剔除不當得利及推定信託反申索的門檻？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another (By Original Action); Li Shu Chung v Lee Sai Nam and others (By Counterclaim) - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：Deputy High Court Judge Burrell - 判決日期：2012年3月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於一宗家庭糾紛，涉及家族企業的營運及利潤分配。原告（反申索）Ken Li是家族成員之一。家族於2009年實施一項「重新開票業務」(re-invoicing operations) 計劃，旨在減少香港的合法稅務負擔，為此在澳門成立了Yuen Hing公司，由Seline Li擔任唯一董事及銀行賬戶唯一簽署人。Yuen Hing公司的唯一目的是持有家族企業的利潤。Yuen Hing銀行賬戶中有一筆可識別的款項53,602,977港元，代表這些利潤。其中28,000,000港元已支付給Ken Li，Ken Li聲稱根據2009年的最新利潤分享協議，他有權獲得餘額25,602,977港元。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議是第三及第四被告（Seline Li及Yuen Hing）申請剔除（strike out）Ken Li的反申索。Ken Li的反申索主要基於「不當得利」(money had and received) 和「推定信託」(constructive trust) 原則，要求Seline Li及Yuen Hing支付餘下的25,602,977港元。Seline Li及Yuen Hing爭辯指，Ken Li的反申索明顯站不住腳，因為款項並非源自Ken Li，且Seline Li個人並未持有款項，款項由獨立法人實體Yuen Hing持有。 ### 判決理由 法官接納Ken Li的法律代表的陳詞，認為剔除申請的門檻很高，即申索必須是「明顯站不住腳」或「不可能成功」才可剔除。法官指出，不當得利申索不一定要求款項源自原告，關鍵在於款項是否屬於原告。推定信託的申索亦可基於被告「知情收受」(knowing receipt) 款項而成立，且無需證明不誠實。儘管Seline Li和Yuen Hing是獨立法人實體，但Seline Li作為Yuen Hing的唯一董事和銀行賬戶簽署人，其行為可使其在推定信託的背景下對原告負責。因此，Ken Li的反申索並非明顯站不住腳。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Ha Francesca v Tsai Kut Kan (No.1) [1982] 1 HKC 382，確立了剔除申請的法律原則，即只有在「明顯和清晰」的情況下才應批准剔除申請，且法庭不應在剔除程序中裁決困難的法律問題。此外，判詞亦引用了Atkins, Court Forms 1995 Vol. 27、香港《實務指南》(Hong Kong “White Book”) 及 Snells Equity (32nd edition) 895，以支持不當得利和推定信託的法律論點。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕了第三及第四被告（Seline Li及Yuen Hing）於2011年11月8日提出的剔除反申索申請。訟費判予原告（反申索）Ken Li。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了剔除申請的嚴格標準，強調法庭在處理此類申請時，應避免在簡易程序中裁決複雜的法律問題。判決亦闡明了「不當得利」和「推定信託」申索的廣泛適用性，特別是在家族企業糾紛中，即使款項並非直接來自原告，或涉及獨立法人實體，仍可能構成有效申索。此外，判決也考慮了申請延誤對剔除申請的影響。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Lee Sai Nam v Li Shu Chung and another (By Original Action); Li Shu Chung v Lee Sai Nam and others (By Counterclaim) - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Deputy High Court Judge Burrell - Date of Judgment: 8 March 2012 ### Factual Background This case arises from a family dispute concerning the operation and profit distribution of a family business. The plaintiff (by counterclaim), Ken Li, is a family member. In 2009, the family implemented a "re-invoicing operations" scheme to reduce legitimate tax liabilities in Hong Kong, which involved incorporating Yuen Hing in Macau. Seline Li became the sole director and sole signatory of Yuen Hing's bank account. Yuen Hing's sole purpose was to hold the profits of the family business. An identifiable sum of HK$53,602,977, representing these profits, was in Yuen Hing's bank account. HK$28,000,000 had already been paid to Ken Li, who claimed entitlement to the balance of HK$25,602,977 based on a 2009 profit-sharing agreement. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was an application by the 3rd and 4th defendants (Seline Li and Yuen Hing) to strike out Ken Li's counterclaim. Ken Li's counterclaim was primarily based on "money had and received" and "breach of constructive trust," seeking the remaining HK$25,602,977. Seline Li and Yuen Hing argued that Ken Li's claim was obviously unsustainable because the money did not originate from Ken Li, and Seline Li personally never possessed the money, which was held by Yuen Hing, a separate legal entity. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge accepted the submissions of Ken Li's counsel, emphasizing the high threshold for a strike-out application, which requires the claim to be "obviously unsustainable" or "impossible to succeed." The judge noted that a claim for money had and received does not necessarily require the money to originate from the plaintiff; the key element is that the property belongs to the plaintiff. A constructive trust claim can also be sustained based on the defendant's "knowing receipt" of the money, without needing to prove dishonesty. Although Seline Li and Yuen Hing are separate legal entities, Seline Li, as Yuen Hing's sole director and bank account signatory, could be held accountable to the plaintiff in the context of a constructive trust. Therefore, Ken Li's counterclaim was not obviously unsustainable. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited Ha Francesca v Tsai Kut Kan (No.1) [1982] 1 HKC 382, which established the legal principles for strike-out applications, stating that such applications should only be granted in "plain and obvious cases" and that courts should not decide difficult points of law in strike-out proceedings. The judgment also referred to Atkins, Court Forms 1995 Vol. 27, the Hong Kong "White Book," and Snells Equity (32nd edition) 895 to support the legal arguments for money had and received and constructive trust. ### Decision & Orders The court refused the applications by the 3rd and 4th defendants (Seline Li and Yuen Hing) dated 8 November 2011 to strike out the counterclaim. Costs were awarded to the plaintiff (by counterclaim), Li Shu Chung. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the stringent standard for strike-out applications, emphasizing that courts should avoid adjudicating complex legal issues in summary proceedings. It clarifies the broad applicability of claims for "money had and received" and "constructive trust," particularly in family business disputes, where a valid claim may exist even if the funds did not directly originate from the plaintiff or involve separate legal entities. Additionally, the judgment considered the impact of delay in bringing a strike-out application. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.