RE LAM KWAN KIT t/a YING KIT STOCK CO

RE LAM KWAN KIT t/a YING KIT STOCK CO

Because the bankrupt (specific devisee) had been granted probate but had not assented and was absent, the court, relying on Probate and Administration Ordinance s70(2) and Trustee Ordinance s45, concluded the property should be vested in the appointed trustees in bankruptcy; the property was not needed for administration of the deceased's estate and trustees had been validly appointed, warranting the vesting order.

Citation
RE LAM KWAN KIT t/a YING KIT STOCK CO
Parties
Applicant/trustee: Applicant; Proposed Joint and Several Trustee: Roderick John Sutton; Bankrupt: Lam Kwan Kit trading as Ying Kit Stock Company; Deceased/testator: Lum Yung
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 May 2007
Case Number
HCMP2547/2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Vesting Order Under Probate and Trustee Legislation / Hearing in Chambers; Judgment on Application
Outcome
Vesting order granted
Legal Topics
Vesting Order, Assent to Devise, Appointment of Trustees in Bankruptcy, Trustee Ordinance S45, Probate and Administration S70
Source Language
EN
Bankruptcy Probate Trusts Insolvency Property Law Vesting Order Assent to Devise Appointment of Trustees in Bankruptcy +2 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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant/trustee

Roderick John Sutton

Proposed Joint and Several Trustee

Lam Kwan Kit trading as Ying Kit Stock Company

Bankrupt

Lum Yung

Deceased/testator

Procedural Posture

Application for Vesting Order Under Probate and Trustee Legislation / Hearing in Chambers; Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should make a vesting order under Probate and Administration Ordinance s70(2) and Trustee Ordinance s45 because the devisee (bankrupt) has not assented and cannot be found
  2. 2 Whether the property should vest in the trustees in bankruptcy despite probate having been granted to the bankrupt
  3. 3 Whether the property is required for administration of the deceased's estate

Ratio Decidendi

Because the bankrupt (specific devisee) had been granted probate but had not assented and was absent, the court, relying on Probate and Administration Ordinance s70(2) and Trustee Ordinance s45, concluded the property should be vested in the appointed trustees in bankruptcy; the property was not needed for administration of the deceased's estate and trustees had been validly appointed, warranting the vesting order.

Court Disposition

Vesting order granted

Orders

  • Order made in the terms of paragraph 1 of the originating summons vesting the property in the applicant and Roderick John Sutton as joint and several trustees of the bankrupt's estate
  • Order made in the terms of paragraphs 2 and 6 of the originating summons