1. These appeals arose in the context of matrimonial proceedings. The respondent husband had made a claim in the District Court for ancillary relief in relation to the assets of his wife, the petitioner. He asserted that she held the legal and beneficial interest in 20 million shares in a private company established and controlled by her father. The wife and her father asserted, on the other hand, that although the shares were registered in her name, she held them on trust for the father. The District Court Judge ordered that issue to be tried as a preliminary issue. 2. The case for the father and his daughter at trial was that he controlled the company and he only transferred shares to those of his adult children who helped him in his business with an understanding that if they left the business they were to return the shares and he relied in part on the fact that when one of his sons left Hong Kong he transferred his shares to his father, as did another son when there had been a falling out. The point of transferring shares to his daughter, he said, was to give her more status when dealing with third parties. He also said that he would not have allowed the company to buy properties after the divorce proceedings were in prospect had he thought that the shares were part of the daughter's assets. 3. The District Court Judge held that the shares were part of the wife’s assets. The judge said that the father’s explanation for transferring shares to his daughter was not logical, that had he intended her to hold the shares on trust for him, he would have executed a written declaration of trust as he had previously with one of his sons and once with the daughter, that the daughter was his right hand and that he intended to transfer the shares to her outright. 4. The judge’s decision was upheld and endorsed by the Court of Appeal. That Court noted that the relevant transfers of shares to the wife were made without declarations of trust at a time when the father, according to his own admission, knew what a declaration of trust was and had used such declarations; and the Court agreed that the evidence was entirely consistent with an intention to gift the shares to the daughter. 5. The wife and her father thereupon appealed to this Court, seeking to challenge the findings of the lower courts as to the beneficial ownership of the shares. At the time of the Court of Appeal’s decision in December 2014, the fact that the matter in dispute amounted to more than $1 million was a fact which, on its own, gave a right of appeal to this Court. These appeals came to this Court under that “as of right provision”, a provision which has since been repealed. 6. The appeals were appeals against concurrent findings of fact; in other words the same findings of fact by both the District Court and the Court of Appeal. The established practice is that the Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact other than in exceptional and rare circumstances. 7. The wife and her father argued that there were exceptional circumstances which warranted a review by the Court. They said that the trial judge had made inconsistent findings; that he wrongly rejected their evidence even though key assertions by them when they testified had not been challenged; that he did not apply the correct approach in deciding what the father’s intention was when he transferred the shares to his daughter; and that he failed to give enough weight to the history of the father’s dealings with his daughter and her brothers; and that the judge failed to provide adequate reasons for deciding as he did. 8. The Court held that most of the complaints did not warrant other than summary disposal since they did not lend themselves to reasonable argument justifying a full review of concurrent findings. The judge made no inconsistent finding: he found that the father intended to gift the shares to the daughter; the challenge to the father and daughter as witnesses was clear enough; and the judge adopted the correct test in deciding the father's intentions. 9. The Court held that the only issue which warranted review was whether the judge explained what weight he gave to the key events relied on by the father and daughter in support of their case and why, despite those events, the judge found as he did. Those events were the occasions on which shares were returned to the father and the property purchases by the company of property after divorce proceedings were in prospect. 10. The Court held that whilst it would have been preferable for the judge to explain in terms how these events sat comfortably with his finding that, nonetheless, father's intention was to gift shares to his daughter, the judge’s reasoning was sufficiently apparent from a sensible reading of his judgement as a whole. It was the same reasoning as articulated by the Court of Appeal, namely, that the account offered by the father and the wife made no sense either in practical terms or in the light of the documentary history and that since no consideration was paid for the shares the only rational conclusion was that a gift was intended. In the context of this case, the findings were not at odds with the incidents of return of shares on which the father relied. 11. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeals.