Sun & Yeng (No 5)

This case involved an application for the adjustment of property interests between Ms Sun and Mr Yeng, with Ms Hau, Mr Yeng’s mother, also a party to the proceeding. The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether adverse inferences could be drawn from the failure of certain parties to give evidence, whether the court had jurisdiction over the claims made by Ms Hau, and whether the claims made by Ms Hau were justiciable. The court also had to consider whether the claims were part of a single justiciable controversy, the applicability of the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, and whether the court should assist in an allegedly illegal scheme.

The court found that adverse inferences could be drawn from the failure of certain parties to give evidence, but these inferences did not affect the outcome of the case. The court determined that it had jurisdiction over Ms Hau’s claims for money had and received, as these claims arose out of the same set of circumstances as the claims between Ms Sun and Mr Yeng. The court held that Ms Hau’s common law claims were justiciable as part of the property adjustment application, relying on various High Court authorities. The court also found that the claims constituted a single justiciable controversy. Regarding the doctrine of indefeasibility of title, the court did not find that the registration was obtained by fraud. The court declined to assist in an allegedly illegal scheme, as it would contravene the rules of Country B. The court found that Ms Hau failed to prove her allegations of fraud and that the wife’s receipt of funds was not dishonest. The court also found that the husband’s parents had gifted the sum received to the husband and wife, and that no misappropriation took place.

The court made several orders, including the transfer of certain properties to Ms Sun, payment of a sum by Ms Sun to Mr Yeng, and the relinquishment of various interests by Ms Sun. The court dismissed Ms Sun’s application for spousal and child maintenance and ordered that the question of costs be determined at a later date.