LEE CHARLES v. LEE YAN CHUN AND OTHERS

LEE CHARLES v. LEE YAN CHUN AND OTHERS

The Deed of 8 June 2004 was valid and binding on the executors once communicated; the 1st to 3rd executors failed to render a full and proper account and unjustifiably delayed distribution of the Canadian Accounts; these failures justified removal under s33 PAO and warranted orders for inventory, account, distribution pursuant to the Deed and appointment of a professional accountant to replace them.

Citation
LEE CHARLES v. LEE YAN CHUN AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/beneficiary: Plaintiff; Executors and Trustees of the Will: 1st to 3rd Defendants; Defendant/beneficiary (in Person): 4th Defendant; Defendants/beneficiaries: 5th to 9th Defendants; Deceased/subject Matter of Proceedings: Estate of Lee Da Kor
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 December 2009
Case Number
HCMP1709/2007
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration (order 85 Rhc; Sections 33 and 56 Pao) / Application Heard in Court of First Instance (reasons for Judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Application allowed in part: plaintiff's claims for account, declaration of validity and enforceability of the Deed, distribution of the Canadian Accounts to the plaintiff, removal of the 1st to 3rd executors and appointment of a replacement accountant granted; costs awarded against 1st and 3rd defendants personally.
Legal Topics
Duty of Executors to Account, Removal of Executors, Validity and Enforcement of Deed Varying Testamentary Dispositions, Declaration and Consequential Relief, Costs in Administration Proceedings
Source Language
EN
Probate and Administration Trusts and Trustees Civil Procedure Estate Law Duty of Executors to Account Removal of Executors Validity and Enforcement of Deed Varying Testamentary Dispositions Declaration and Consequential Relief +1 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff/beneficiary

1st to 3rd Defendants

Executors and Trustees of the Will

4th Defendant

Defendant/beneficiary (in Person)

5th to 9th Defendants

Defendants/beneficiaries

Estate of Lee Da Kor

Deceased/subject Matter of Proceedings

Procedural Posture

Probate and Administration (order 85 Rhc; Sections 33 and 56 Pao) / Application Heard in Court of First Instance (reasons for Judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether executors must furnish a full inventory and render accounts under s56 PAO and Order 85 RHC
  2. 2 Whether the Deed dated 8 June 2004 varying testamentary dispositions is valid and enforceable and binds the executors
  3. 3 Whether the executors should be removed under s33 PAO for failure to administer and for delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Deed of 8 June 2004 was valid and binding on the executors once communicated; the 1st to 3rd executors failed to render a full and proper account and unjustifiably delayed distribution of the Canadian Accounts; these failures justified removal under s33 PAO and warranted orders for inventory, account, distribution pursuant to the Deed and appointment of a professional accountant to replace them.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in part: plaintiff's claims for account, declaration of validity and enforceability of the Deed, distribution of the Canadian Accounts to the plaintiff, removal of the 1st to 3rd executors and appointment of a replacement accountant granted; costs awarded against 1st and 3rd defendants personally.

Orders

  • Order requiring 1st to 3rd defendants to provide full inventory and verified account of the estate pursuant to s56 PAO and Order 85 RHC
  • Declaration that the Deed dated 8 June 2004 is valid and enforceable and consequential directions to distribute the Canadian Accounts (the Monies) to the plaintiff