YEE KWOK CHUN AND ANOTHER v. YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT AND ANOTHER

YEE KWOK CHUN AND ANOTHER v. YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT AND ANOTHER

Given entrenched division and mutual distrust among beneficiaries, the practical complexity of administering an estate heavily composed of company shares and non-liquid assets, and the availability of a modest capped professional fee, the court exercised its s36 PAO discretion to require appointment of an independent solicitor to administer the estate, discharge the caveat and dismiss the existing application for grant by the Persons Warning.

Citation
YEE KWOK CHUN AND ANOTHER v. YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT AND ANOTHER
Parties
Caveator: YEE KWOK CHUN; Caveator: YEE SHIU MAY; Person Warning / Applicant for Grant: YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT; Person Warning / Applicant for Grant: YU KWOK FAI EDWARD; Applicant Under S36 PAO (interested Sibling): YU MEE LEE PENDORA; Shareholder / Interested Party: KIT Mui; Deceased: YEE FONG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 February 2012
Case Number
HCCA4070/2010
Procedural Posture
Caveat Proceedings and Contested Administration Under Probate and Administration Ordinance (cap.10) / Hearing on Caveat and Appointment of Administrator; Decision Reserved and Handed Down (judgment on Appointment and Ancillary Orders)
Outcome
Caveat discharged; Persons Warning's application for grant dismissed; order for administration via a new application with an independent solicitor to act as administrator on stipulated fee terms; costs ordered nisi against the Persons Warning.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Administrator, Caveat Against Grant of Representation, Non Contentious Probate Rules, Conflict Among Intestate Beneficiaries, Administration of Estate Assets (including Company Shares)
Source Language
EN
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Company Law Appointment of Administrator Caveat Against Grant of Representation Non Contentious Probate Rules Conflict Among Intestate Beneficiaries Administration of Estate Assets (including Company Shares)

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 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEE KWOK CHUN

Caveator

YEE SHIU MAY

Caveator

YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT

Person Warning / Applicant for Grant

YU KWOK FAI EDWARD

Person Warning / Applicant for Grant

YU MEE LEE PENDORA

Applicant Under S36 PAO (interested Sibling)

KIT Mui

Shareholder / Interested Party

YEE FONG

Deceased

Procedural Posture

Caveat Proceedings and Contested Administration Under Probate and Administration Ordinance (cap.10) / Hearing on Caveat and Appointment of Administrator; Decision Reserved and Handed Down (judgment on Appointment and Ancillary Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should exercise its discretion under section 36 PAO to appoint an independent administrator
  2. 2 Whether the caveat lodged by the Caveators should remain in effect
  3. 3 Whether the Persons Warning's application for grant should be allowed given family division and conflict

Ratio Decidendi

Given entrenched division and mutual distrust among beneficiaries, the practical complexity of administering an estate heavily composed of company shares and non-liquid assets, and the availability of a modest capped professional fee, the court exercised its s36 PAO discretion to require appointment of an independent solicitor to administer the estate, discharge the caveat and dismiss the existing application for grant by the Persons Warning.

Court Disposition

Caveat discharged; Persons Warning's application for grant dismissed; order for administration via a new application with an independent solicitor to act as administrator on stipulated fee terms; costs ordered nisi against the Persons Warning.

Orders

  • The caveat filed by the Caveators on 10 December 2010 shall cease to have any effect.
  • The application for grant by the Persons Warning under HCAG013952/2010 is dismissed.