RE CK

RE CK

Because the MIPs have complex, varied and valuable estates and the applicants are antagonistic, the court must appoint independent professional committees and restrict the extent of pre-appointment forensic disclosure; costs should be apportioned to reflect unnecessary adversarial conduct — estates bear limited costs (filing/service and a fixed lump sum each), Y must pay specified costs to C, and estates must indemnify Official Solicitor and DSW; all costs to be summarily assessed by the judge.

Citation
RE CK
Parties
Mentally Incapacitated Person: CK (M); Mentally Incapacitated Person: WSY (S); Applicant: C; Applicant: Y; Guardian: Director of Social Welfare; Interested Party: Official Solicitor; Committee: Appointed accountant
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
17 September 2012
Case Number
HCMH81/2011
Procedural Posture
Mental Health (part Ii) / Costs Allocation and Appointment of Committees Following Consolidation and Hearing
Outcome
Accountant appointed as committees for both MIPs; costs allocated between estates and parties as specified; orders for summary assessment of costs by the judge.
Legal Topics
Appointment of Committee, Section 7 Evidence Requirements, Costs Allocation, Consolidation, Disclosure of Assets
Source Language
EN
Mental Health Law Guardianship Costs Appointment of Committee Section 7 Evidence Requirements Costs Allocation Consolidation Disclosure of Assets

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 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CK (M)

Mentally Incapacitated Person

WSY (S)

Mentally Incapacitated Person

C

Applicant

Y

Applicant

Director of Social Welfare

Guardian

Official Solicitor

Interested Party

Appointed accountant

Committee

Procedural Posture

Mental Health (part Ii) / Costs Allocation and Appointment of Committees Following Consolidation and Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the estates should bear all costs of competing Part II applications
  2. 2 Extent of evidence of property required under section 7 in complex estates
  3. 3 Appropriate composition of committees where relatives are antagonistic

Ratio Decidendi

Because the MIPs have complex, varied and valuable estates and the applicants are antagonistic, the court must appoint independent professional committees and restrict the extent of pre-appointment forensic disclosure; costs should be apportioned to reflect unnecessary adversarial conduct — estates bear limited costs (filing/service and a fixed lump sum each), Y must pay specified costs to C, and estates must indemnify Official Solicitor and DSW; all costs to be summarily assessed by the judge.

Court Disposition

Accountant appointed as committees for both MIPs; costs allocated between estates and parties as specified; orders for summary assessment of costs by the judge.

Orders

  • Estates of the two MIPs to bear the costs of all four applications up to filing in court and service on one another
  • Estates of the two MIPs to pay a lump sum of HK$60,000 for each side (HK$60,000 per applicant side)