NG KIN YUEN, Administrator of the estate of LAM TIM STAN also known as LAM TIM alias STAN LAM TIM, deceased v. LAM SIK YING VICTOR AND OTHERS

NG KIN YUEN, Administrator of the estate of LAM TIM STAN also known as LAM TIM alias STAN LAM TIM, deceased v. LAM SIK YING VICTOR AND OTHERS

The court apportioned overall costs two‑thirds to the contentious D2 and Madam Wong status issues (category 4) and one‑third to the remaining administration issues (category 1); held that category 4 costs should follow the event and Victor, as unsuccessful party on those issues and in a series of late/unmeritorious procedural steps, must pay the successful parties’ costs and the neutral parties’ costs on an indemnity basis; the remaining one‑third will be paid from the estate but taxed on an indemnity basis by the court’s discretion rather than solicitor and own client basis; requests to make the estate liable for any unrecoverable shortfall were refused.

Citation
[2025] HKCFI 2742
Parties
Plaintiff / Administrator of the Estate of Lam Tim Stan (deceased): NG KIN YUEN; 1st Defendant: LAM SIK YING VICTOR; 2nd Defendant: TANG LAM MO CHING MARY; 3rd Defendant: LAM MO LIN; 4th Defendant (lawful Attorney of Shum Wai Kuen Sanda, Administrator of the Estate of Lam Mo Chun): SHUM CHI WANG; 5th Defendant: LAM MO CHU SUSIE; 6th Defendant: LAM SIK SHI
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
HCMP1924/2020
Procedural Posture
Estate Administration / Administration Action (originating Summons Under Order 85 R2 and Order 62 R6) / Costs Hearing and Decision (post‑substantive Hearings)
Outcome
Costs orders made: detailed apportionment and directions for payment, taxation and personal liability as set out in orders
Legal Topics
Buckton Classification, Costs Orders and Taxation, Beneficiaries Dispute, Status of Spouse/concubine (fuzheng), Admissibility and Late Evidence, Indemnity Costs, Trustee Basis Taxation
Source Language
EN
Probate Estate Administration Civil Procedure Costs Buckton Classification Costs Orders and Taxation Beneficiaries Dispute Status of Spouse/concubine (fuzheng) +3 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NG KIN YUEN

Plaintiff / Administrator of the Estate of Lam Tim Stan (deceased)

LAM SIK YING VICTOR

1st Defendant

TANG LAM MO CHING MARY

2nd Defendant

LAM MO LIN

3rd Defendant

SHUM CHI WANG

4th Defendant (lawful Attorney of Shum Wai Kuen Sanda, Administrator of the Estate of Lam Mo Chun)

LAM MO CHU SUSIE

5th Defendant

LAM SIK SHI

6th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Estate Administration / Administration Action (originating Summons Under Order 85 R2 and Order 62 R6) / Costs Hearing and Decision (post‑substantive Hearings)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issues fall within Buckton categories 1 or 4 for costs allocation
  2. 2 Whether Madam Wong was lawful wife or concubine (Madam Wong status issue)
  3. 3 Whether D2 is a beneficiary (D2 status issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The court apportioned overall costs two‑thirds to the contentious D2 and Madam Wong status issues (category 4) and one‑third to the remaining administration issues (category 1); held that category 4 costs should follow the event and Victor, as unsuccessful party on those issues and in a series of late/unmeritorious procedural steps, must pay the successful parties’ costs and the neutral parties’ costs on an indemnity basis; the remaining one‑third will be paid from the estate but taxed on an indemnity basis by the court’s discretion rather than solicitor and own client basis; requests to make the estate liable for any unrecoverable shortfall were refused.

Court Disposition

Costs orders made: detailed apportionment and directions for payment, taxation and personal liability as set out in orders

Orders

  • (1)(a) The costs of and occasioned by the amended originating summons, including the hearing on 30 March 2023, 30 August 2023 and 31 August 2023 (save and except those costs of and occasioned by the 1st defendant’s summons filed on 29 March 2023 (the "1st Defendants Summons")), this application and the hearing on 13...
  • (2) The 1st defendant shall reimburse the Estate for two‑thirds of both the Administration Action Costs and the Summons Costs incurred by the plaintiff, to be deducted from and/or set off against the 1st defendant’s net entitlement and/or interest in the Estate in the first instance, and to be borne and paid by the...