HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

HO WAI YIN AND OTHERS v. CHENG SUET YEE

In light of the prolonged dormancy, the defendant's evidence that the Property was not part of the estate and was acquired with her own funds, the lack of opposing evidence from the plaintiffs and the existence of other protective orders, the court exercised its discretion to release the defendant from the limited...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] HKCFI 2690
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HO WAI YIN; 2nd Plaintiff: CHENG KWAN; 3rd Plaintiff: HO WAI CHING; 3rd Plaintiff: HO WAI MING; 3rd Plaintiff: HO WAI CHEONG; 3rd Plaintiff: HO SAI HUNG; 3rd Plaintiff: HO WAI HA; Defendant: CHENG SUET YEE
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
25 October 2023
Case Number
HCAP18/2003
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Interlocutory Application to Release Undertaking (chambers Hearing)
Outcome
Defendant released from the undertaking in the April 2004 Order insofar as it restrained dealing with the Property.
Legal Topics
Release of Undertaking, Undertaking as Security, Letters of Administration, Dormant Proceedings, Interlocutory Relief
Source Language
en
Probate Civil Procedure Property Release of Undertaking Undertaking as Security Letters of Administration Dormant Proceedings Interlocutory Relief

Source-derived case record

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

HO WAI YIN

1st Plaintiff

CHENG KWAN

2nd Plaintiff

HO WAI CHING

3rd Plaintiff

HO WAI MING

3rd Plaintiff

HO WAI CHEONG

3rd Plaintiff

HO SAI HUNG

3rd Plaintiff

HO WAI HA

3rd Plaintiff

CHENG SUET YEE

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Interlocutory Application to Release Undertaking (chambers Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should release the defendant from an undertaking as to the Property
  2. 2 Whether there has been a material change of circumstances warranting discharge of the undertaking
  3. 3 Whether the Property forms part of the estate in dispute and whether third‑party interests are protected

Ratio Decidendi

In light of the prolonged dormancy, the defendant's evidence that the Property was not part of the estate and was acquired with her own funds, the lack of opposing evidence from the plaintiffs and the existence of other protective orders, the court exercised its discretion to release the defendant from the limited undertaking as to the Property as just and appropriate.

Court Disposition

Defendant released from the undertaking in the April 2004 Order insofar as it restrained dealing with the Property.

Orders

  • Release the Defendant from the undertaking recorded in the Order of Deputy High Court Judge Jat SC dated 16 April 2004 insofar as it restrained the Defendant from selling, mortgaging, charging, incumbering or otherwise dealing with Workshop No.9, 16th Floor, Fullagar Industrial Building No.234 Aberdeen Main Road,...