RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

The application was dismissed because (1) the maintenance claim in HCMP1919/2010 is a personal claim not vested in the trustees and therefore not something the trustees could be required to pursue or release, and (2) in respect of the other actions the trustees reasonably concluded the claims were not sufficiently meritorious and there was no indemnity or estate funding to meet potential adverse costs; such decisions fall within the trustees' proper discretion and are not perverse or clearly wrong warranting court interference under section 83.

Citation
RE WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
Parties
Bankrupt: Wan Po Jun Mary Pauline; Creditor (representative of the Estate of Au Yeung Wing Hong): Au Yeung Yee Man; Joint and Several Trustee of the Property of the Bankrupt: Wong Ka Lam King
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
3 May 2013
Case Number
HCB144/2011
Procedural Posture
Bankruptcy (bankruptcy Proceedings No. 144 of 2011) / Application Under Section 83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance to Challenge Trustee Decisions (heard and Dismissed in Chambers)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Trustee Discretion, Replacement of Trustee, Release of Conduct of Litigation, Costs Indemnity, Maintenance Under IPFDO, Declarations of Trust, Legal Aid, Merits Assessment
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Insolvency Probate Trusts Civil Procedure Family Law Trustee Discretion Replacement of Trustee +6 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wan Po Jun Mary Pauline

Bankrupt

Au Yeung Yee Man

Creditor (representative of the Estate of Au Yeung Wing Hong)

Wong Ka Lam King

Joint and Several Trustee of the Property of the Bankrupt

Procedural Posture

Bankruptcy (bankruptcy Proceedings No. 144 of 2011) / Application Under Section 83 of the Bankruptcy Ordinance to Challenge Trustee Decisions (heard and Dismissed in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trustee acted unreasonably or perversely in refusing to continue or to release conduct of four actions to the bankrupt
  2. 2 Whether the claim under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (HCMP1919/2010) is property vested in the trustee
  3. 3 Whether trustees may be replaced under section 83 where they refuse to pursue claims for lack of merit or funding

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because (1) the maintenance claim in HCMP1919/2010 is a personal claim not vested in the trustees and therefore not something the trustees could be required to pursue or release, and (2) in respect of the other actions the trustees reasonably concluded the claims were not sufficiently meritorious and there was no indemnity or estate funding to meet potential adverse costs; such decisions fall within the trustees' proper discretion and are not perverse or clearly wrong warranting court interference under section 83.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Bankrupt's application dismissed
  • No order as to costs (by consent of the trustees)