Limitation Period Against Constructive Trustees

Abstract

<p>This commentary examines the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal’s recent decision in Hui Chun Ping v Hui Kau Mo [2024] HKCFA 32 (Hui Chun Ping), which addresses the application of limitation periods to constructive trusts. The case scrutinises the scope of section 20 of the Limitation Ordinance, which parallels section 19 of the UK Limitation Act 1939, subsequently re-enacted as section 21 of the Limitation Act 1980. Specifically, it investigates whether this section encompasses claims against constructive trustees and assesses the nature of constructive trusts in situations where fiduciaries receive bribes or commissions. Lord Hoffmann NPJ’s judgment, which underscores an institutional rather than a consensual interpretation of constructive trusts, contributes to the ongoing legal discourse in both Hong Kong and English law. This commentary juxtaposes Lord Hoffmann’s reasoning with established principles from landmark cases such as Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Reid and FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC, providing a nuanced perspective on the interplay between fiduciary duties and equitable remedies.<br></p>