LAM SHING SHOU v. LAM HON MAN AND OTHERS

LAM SHING SHOU v. LAM HON MAN AND OTHERS

The court held that the District Officers' approvals of the 1st Succession (1947) and the 2nd Successions (1997 and 1998) should not have been given and that Lam Shui Yan and the 1st to 3rd defendants should not have been registered as successors; the court refused to declare that Lam Shui Yan acted fraudulently and refused to declare the plaintiff to be the lawful adopted son and successor because the plaintiff's expert applied the wrong law and the court lacked sufficient pleaded and evidential basis; costs were awarded to the plaintiff in a gross sum of HKD125,000.

Citation
LAM SHING SHOU v. LAM HON MAN AND OTHERS
Parties
Deceased: Lam Tak (alias Lam Fat); Registered Successor (1st Succession): Lam Shui Yan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
7 January 2002
Case Number
HCA361/2001
Procedural Posture
Land Succession; Declaration / Application for Judgment in Default Under Order 13 R.6 and Order 19 R.7; Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Judgment in part for plaintiff: limited declarations granted; other declarations refused; costs awarded to plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Succession Approval, Declaration, Fraud Allegation, Default Judgment, Adverse Possession, Expert Evidence on Adoption
Source Language
EN
Property Law Succession Civil Procedure Land Registration Costs Succession Approval Declaration Fraud Allegation +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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Tak (alias Lam Fat)

Deceased

Lam Shui Yan

Registered Successor (1st Succession)

Procedural Posture

Land Succession; Declaration / Application for Judgment in Default Under Order 13 R.6 and Order 19 R.7; Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 1947 succession (1st Succession) was valid or obtained by fraud
  2. 2 Whether subsequent approvals in 1997 and 1998 (2nd Succession) are tainted and valid
  3. 3 Whether the court may grant declaratory relief in default of defence and without trial

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the District Officers' approvals of the 1st Succession (1947) and the 2nd Successions (1997 and 1998) should not have been given and that Lam Shui Yan and the 1st to 3rd defendants should not have been registered as successors; the court refused to declare that Lam Shui Yan acted fraudulently and refused to declare the plaintiff to be the lawful adopted son and successor because the plaintiff's expert applied the wrong law and the court lacked sufficient pleaded and evidential basis; costs were awarded to the plaintiff in a gross sum of HKD125,000.

Court Disposition

Judgment in part for plaintiff: limited declarations granted; other declarations refused; costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 1st Succession to the Properties as approved in 1947 by the then District Officer, New Territories should not have been approved and that Lam Shui Yan should not have been registered as successor to the Properties.
  • Declaration that the 2nd Succession to the Properties as approved by the District Officer, Yuen Long on 19 April 1997 and by the District Officer, North District on 23 July 1998 should not have been approved and that the 1st, 2nd and 3rd defendants should not have been registered as successors.