Family Feud Over Property

BackgroundIn a recent judgment by the High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (Chau Kwan Lam v Chau Ka Yee Carie [2025] HKCFI 1629), the court addressed a property dispute between a father and his daughter. The central issue was the beneficial ownership of a property located in Fanling, Hong Kong, which had been registered in the Father's name.

Key Facts

• The Father acquired the property under the Home Ownership Scheme in 1993 and initially financed it through a mortgage.

• In 2000, after the last tenancy expired, the Daughter moved into the property and began paying the mortgage, as well as covering other household expenses.

• The Daughter married in 2005 and continued to treat the property as her matrimonial home, while the Father resettled in Mainland China.

In 2014, the Father and Daughter jointly applied to transfer the property solely into the Daughter's name. However, the Hong Kong Housing Authority did not approve this transfer. The Father later claimed that he had granted the Daughter a mere license to occupy the property, which he now sought to revoke.

Daughter's CounterclaimIn response, the Daughter countered with a claim asserting that she was the sole beneficial owner of the property. She argued that her long-standing financial contributions, including mortgage repayments and other expenses, were made under an agreement with the Father, which would entitle her to ownership.

Court FindingsThe court found that:

1. The Father had indeed allowed the Daughter to live in the property but maintained that this was under a license, not as an owner.

2. The Daughter's claims of an agreement to transfer ownership were not substantiated by sufficient evidence. The court highlighted that while the Daughter had contributed financially, this alone did not prove a common intention for ownership transfer.

3. The Daughter’s understanding of ownership did not align with the Father’s intentions, as he had indicated that the property would only be transferred after his passing.

ConclusionUltimately, the court dismissed the Daughter's counterclaim, ordering her to vacate the property while awarding nominal damages of $100 to the Father. Additionally, the Daughter was ordered to pay the Father's legal costs for the action.

This case underscores the complexities involved in family property disputes, particularly regarding informal agreements and the importance of clear communication about ownership intentions. As always, it is advisable for individuals to document arrangements formally to avoid similar conflicts in the future.