Kei v Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Company Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1483 (13 December 2023)

Kei v Hua She Asset Management (Shanghai) Company Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 1483 (13 December 2023)

Mr Kei Kin Hung failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he lacked capacity to conduct litigation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The psychiatric evidence was conclusory and unsupported by reasoning on functionality or remedial measures, while the UBS documents demonstrated his capacity to make complex financial decisions during the relevant period. The fresh evidence did not alter this conclusion.

Citation
[2023] EWCA Civ 1483
Parties
Appellant/defendant: KEI KIN HUNG; Respondent/claimant: HUA SHE ASSET MANAGEMENT (SHANGHAI) COMPANY LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 December 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Mental Capacity and Litigation Friend
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Litigation Friend, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Freezing Orders, Asset Disclosure, Committal Proceedings
Civil Procedure Mental Capacity Law Litigation Friend Mental Capacity Act 2005 Freezing Orders Asset Disclosure Committal Proceedings

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KEI KIN HUNG

Appellant/defendant

HUA SHE ASSET MANAGEMENT (SHANGHAI) COMPANY LIMITED

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Mental Capacity and Litigation Friend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Kei Kin Hung lacked capacity to conduct litigation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and CPR 21
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of a litigation friend was justified
  3. 3 Whether fresh evidence on capacity should be admitted on appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Kei Kin Hung failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that he lacked capacity to conduct litigation under the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The psychiatric evidence was conclusory and unsupported by reasoning on functionality or remedial measures, while the UBS documents demonstrated his capacity to make complex financial decisions during the relevant period. The fresh evidence did not alter this conclusion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; Foxton J's order upheld; Mr Kei found not to lack capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005