CHOW SHAUK YIN AND OTHERS v. CHAU HAU TUNG

CHOW SHAUK YIN AND OTHERS v. CHAU HAU TUNG

Because the defendant failed to respond to repeated demands, neglected to inform beneficiaries about key progress and thus acted unreasonably, the court refused indemnity for costs incurred up to and including the 20 September 2010 hearing and ordered the defendant to pay those costs personally on a party-to-party basis; costs incurred between 21 September and 3 November 2010 were ordered to be paid out of the estate and taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed.

Citation
CHOW SHAUK YIN AND OTHERS v. CHAU HAU TUNG
Parties
Plaintiffs: Plaintiffs (beneficiaries of the estate of Chau Yu alias Chau Yiu); Defendant/administrator: Defendant (administrator of the estate)
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 January 2011
Case Number
HCMP2139/2006
Procedural Posture
Administration of Estate (probate) / Costs Determination Following Consent Order Culminating 4 November 2010
Outcome
Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs up to and including 20 September 2010 personally on a party-to-party basis and not indemnified from the estate; costs of both parties from 21 September to 3 November 2010 to be paid out of the estate to be taxed on indemnity basis if not agreed; leave granted to amend...
Legal Topics
Administration of Estate, Indemnity of Administrator for Costs, Court Discretion on Costs Orders, Accounts and Distribution
Source Language
EN
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Costs Administration of Estate Indemnity of Administrator for Costs Court Discretion on Costs Orders Accounts and Distribution

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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs (beneficiaries of the estate of Chau Yu alias Chau Yiu)

Plaintiffs

Defendant (administrator of the estate)

Defendant/administrator

Procedural Posture

Administration of Estate (probate) / Costs Determination Following Consent Order Culminating 4 November 2010

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the administrator is entitled to indemnity from the estate for costs incurred between 9 May 2007 and 3 November 2010
  2. 2 Whether the defendant’s conduct was unreasonable such that indemnity should be refused and costs ordered against him personally
  3. 3 How costs should be allocated between parties and the estate for different time periods

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendant failed to respond to repeated demands, neglected to inform beneficiaries about key progress and thus acted unreasonably, the court refused indemnity for costs incurred up to and including the 20 September 2010 hearing and ordered the defendant to pay those costs personally on a party-to-party basis; costs incurred between 21 September and 3 November 2010 were ordered to be paid out of the estate and taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed.

Court Disposition

Defendant ordered to pay Plaintiffs' costs up to and including 20 September 2010 personally on a party-to-party basis and not indemnified from the estate; costs of both parties from 21 September to 3 November 2010 to be paid out of the estate to be taxed on indemnity basis if not agreed; leave granted to amend...

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Plaintiffs' costs up to and including the hearing of 20 September 2010 personally on a party-to-party basis and not to be indemnified from the estate as to such costs or his own costs up to 20 September 2010
  • Costs incurred by both Plaintiffs and Defendant between 21 September and 3 November 2010 to be paid out of the estate and to be taxed on an indemnity basis if not agreed