TSE MOON SAK v. TSE HUNG AND OTHERS

TSE MOON SAK v. TSE HUNG AND OTHERS

The Court held that the Johnston Road property (No.204) was devised as an absolute vested interest to the persons named in the first paragraph of the Codicil, with enjoyment postponed until the specified event; two grandsons were excluded from Johnston Road by the Codicil which erroneously allocated them No.30 Wood Road (which was not part of the estate); until any vesting order is made the executors must collect rents from No.204 and apply income to pay the monthly allowances specified in the Will and Codicil subject to the executors' discretion to vary amounts; the business 'Sun Hay Cheung' had been wound up and is no longer relevant.

Citation
TSE MOON SAK v. TSE HUNG AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff (executor of the Will of TSE LAI Chiu, Deceased): TSE MOON SAK also known as STEPHEN TSE; 1st Defendant: TSE HUNG also known as TSE HUNG SAK; 2nd Defendant: TSE SIU CHEUNG; 3rd Defendant: TSE NGA YIN; 4th Defendant (widow): YIP WAN CHING; 5th Defendant: TSE LAI FONG
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
24 July 1969
Case Number
HCMP88/1968
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons Estate (will and Codicil) / Judgment (supreme Court in Chambers)
Outcome
Declaration that No.204 Johnston Road is vested in the persons specified in the first paragraph of the Codicil in the shares stated (vested but enjoyment postponed); No.30 Wood Road was not part of the estate; until any vesting order the executors must collect rents from No.204 and apply them to the monthly...
Legal Topics
Vesting of Interest, Construction of Will and Codicil, Administration of Estate Income, Beneficiary Allowances, Certainty of Testamentary Conditions
Source Language
EN
Wills and Probate Trusts Property Law Estate Administration Vesting of Interest Construction of Will and Codicil Administration of Estate Income Beneficiary Allowances +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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TSE MOON SAK also known as STEPHEN TSE

Plaintiff (executor of the Will of TSE LAI Chiu, Deceased)

TSE HUNG also known as TSE HUNG SAK

1st Defendant

TSE SIU CHEUNG

2nd Defendant

TSE NGA YIN

3rd Defendant

YIP WAN CHING

4th Defendant (widow)

TSE LAI FONG

5th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons Estate (will and Codicil) / Judgment (supreme Court in Chambers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether No.204 Johnston Road was vested absolutely in the grandsons or held on trust for the executors
  2. 2 Effect of the Codicil on distribution and on the inclusion/exclusion of No.30 Wood Road
  3. 3 Whether the executors could retain beneficial ownership under the Will's discretionary language

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that the Johnston Road property (No.204) was devised as an absolute vested interest to the persons named in the first paragraph of the Codicil, with enjoyment postponed until the specified event; two grandsons were excluded from Johnston Road by the Codicil which erroneously allocated them No.30 Wood Road (which was not part of the estate); until any vesting order is made the executors must collect rents from No.204 and apply income to pay the monthly allowances specified in the Will and Codicil subject to the executors' discretion to vary amounts; the business 'Sun Hay Cheung' had been wound up and is no longer relevant.

Court Disposition

Declaration that No.204 Johnston Road is vested in the persons specified in the first paragraph of the Codicil in the shares stated (vested but enjoyment postponed); No.30 Wood Road was not part of the estate; until any vesting order the executors must collect rents from No.204 and apply them to the monthly...

Orders

  • No.204 Johnston Road is vested in the persons specified in the first paragraph of the Codicil in accordance with the shares therein stated; the vesting is absolute though enjoyment is postponed.
  • No.30 Wood Road did not form part of the Testator's estate at the time of the Will; Testator had no interest in it (Deed of Assignment dated 20 December 1956).