HOR YON TOY AND OTHERS v. TSUI SIU HING AND OTHERS

HOR YON TOY AND OTHERS v. TSUI SIU HING AND OTHERS

The 2nd Plaintiff is a fit person to be appointed sole administrator because she has long conducted the administration, the Defendants previously acquiesced in her conduct, and the court will require security to protect the Defendants' interests so as to facilitate final winding up of the estate.

Citation
HOR YON TOY AND OTHERS v. TSUI SIU HING AND OTHERS
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HOR YON TOY; 2nd Plaintiff: LO YUET WAH; 3rd Plaintiff: LO CHI KIM; 1st Defendant: TSUI SIU HING; 2nd Defendant: LO LUI; 3rd Defendant: LO CHI KAN
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
8 November 2004
Case Number
HCMP37/1979
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration Appointment of Administrator (section 36) / Ruling (court of First Instance, Hearing 8 November 2004)
Outcome
2nd Plaintiff appointed sole administrator with requirement to provide security
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrator, Intestacy, Security for Administrator, Enforcement of Consent Orders
Source Language
EN
Probate Law Estate Administration Civil Procedure Appointment of Administrator Intestacy Security for Administrator Enforcement of Consent Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOR YON TOY

1st Plaintiff

LO YUET WAH

2nd Plaintiff

LO CHI KIM

3rd Plaintiff

TSUI SIU HING

1st Defendant

LO LUI

2nd Defendant

LO CHI KAN

3rd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate and Administration Appointment of Administrator (section 36) / Ruling (court of First Instance, Hearing 8 November 2004)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should appoint the 2nd Plaintiff as administrator under section 36 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance
  2. 2 Whether the administrator should act alone or jointly
  3. 3 Whether security should be required to protect the Defendants' interests

Ratio Decidendi

The 2nd Plaintiff is a fit person to be appointed sole administrator because she has long conducted the administration, the Defendants previously acquiesced in her conduct, and the court will require security to protect the Defendants' interests so as to facilitate final winding up of the estate.

Court Disposition

2nd Plaintiff appointed sole administrator with requirement to provide security

Orders

  • Lo Yuet Wah (2nd Plaintiff) is appointed administrator of the intestate estate under section 36 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance
  • The administrator may act alone without joining others in the administration