CHEN QUNYING v. YEUNG WING YAN

CHEN QUNYING v. YEUNG WING YAN

Defendant had no valid grounds to oppose the plaintiff who as surviving wife had statutory priority; defendant unreasonably contested, rejected a reasonable Open Offer and only accepted terms after the court intervention; her conduct amounted to abuse of process and unjustifiably increased costs. Accordingly the defendant must bear the plaintiff's costs of the action on an indemnity basis; summary assessment on paper with fixed lodgement and payment timelines ordered.

Citation
[2024] HKCFI 2513
Parties
Plaintiff (surviving Wife): Chen Qunying; Defendant (eldest Daughter): Unnamed eldest daughter of Yeung Woon Ping (the defendant)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Case Number
HCMP555/2023
Procedural Posture
Probate — Originating Summons Under S.36 Probate and Administration Ordinance / Post Substantive Hearing Costs Determination
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of the Originating Summons including all reserved costs, to be assessed on an indemnity basis; summary assessment on paper; assessed costs payable by defendant within 14 days after assessment.
Legal Topics
Letters of Administration, Indemnity Costs, Passing Over, Professional Administrator Appointment, Caveats
Source Language
EN
Probate Civil Procedure Costs Letters of Administration Indemnity Costs Passing Over Professional Administrator Appointment Caveats

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chen Qunying

Plaintiff (surviving Wife)

Unnamed eldest daughter of Yeung Woon Ping (the defendant)

Defendant (eldest Daughter)

Procedural Posture

Probate — Originating Summons Under S.36 Probate and Administration Ordinance / Post Substantive Hearing Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant should bear the plaintiff's costs
  2. 2 Whether costs should be assessed on an indemnity basis
  3. 3 Whether the defendant should be regarded as the successful party

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant had no valid grounds to oppose the plaintiff who as surviving wife had statutory priority; defendant unreasonably contested, rejected a reasonable Open Offer and only accepted terms after the court intervention; her conduct amounted to abuse of process and unjustifiably increased costs. Accordingly the defendant must bear the plaintiff's costs of the action on an indemnity basis; summary assessment on paper with fixed lodgement and payment timelines ordered.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay plaintiff's costs of the Originating Summons including all reserved costs, to be assessed on an indemnity basis; summary assessment on paper; assessed costs payable by defendant within 14 days after assessment.

Orders

  • Defendant shall bear the plaintiff's costs of the Originating Summons including all costs reserved, to be assessed on an indemnity basis.
  • Plaintiff to lodge and serve her statement of costs within 14 days.