HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. BRIAN HALKSWORTH AND OTHERS

HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. BRIAN HALKSWORTH AND OTHERS

Paragraph 8(c), the first residuary gift, takes effect and exhausts the residuary estate so that paragraph 8(d) has no operation as a residuary gift; consequently the 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled to the interests set out in the summons and the 1st defendant is entitled to nothing under the will.

Citation
HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LTD v. BRIAN HALKSWORTH AND OTHERS
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LIMITED; 1st Defendant: BRIAN HALKSWORTH; 2nd Defendant: MARK HALKSWORTH; 3rd Defendant (minor): MATTHEW CALEB HALKSWORTH
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
9 April 1986
Case Number
HCMP1060/1983
Procedural Posture
High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (trusts of Will) / Application for Directions; Judgment in Chambers Delivered
Outcome
Court determined that paragraph 8(c) prevails; the 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled as set out in the originating summons; the 1st defendant is not entitled to any share under the will.
Legal Topics
Construction of Will, Residuary Gifts, Ambiguity in Testamentary Disposition, Priority of Inconsistent Gifts
Source Language
EN
Wills and Probate Trusts Equity Estate Administration Construction of Will Residuary Gifts Ambiguity in Testamentary Disposition Priority of Inconsistent Gifts

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

HONGKONG BANK TRUSTEE LIMITED

Plaintiff/applicant

BRIAN HALKSWORTH

1st Defendant

MARK HALKSWORTH

2nd Defendant

MATTHEW CALEB HALKSWORTH

3rd Defendant (minor)

Procedural Posture

High Court Miscellaneous Proceedings (trusts of Will) / Application for Directions; Judgment in Chambers Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 8(c) or 8(d) of the will governs distribution of the residuary estate
  2. 2 Whether the first residuary gift exhausts the residuary estate leaving no property for the second residuary gift
  3. 3 Whether Winnie Chan is entitled to half the income for life and how the capital is to be divided thereafter

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraph 8(c), the first residuary gift, takes effect and exhausts the residuary estate so that paragraph 8(d) has no operation as a residuary gift; consequently the 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled to the interests set out in the summons and the 1st defendant is entitled to nothing under the will.

Court Disposition

Court determined that paragraph 8(c) prevails; the 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled as set out in the originating summons; the 1st defendant is not entitled to any share under the will.

Orders

  • Declaration that the 2nd and 3rd defendants are entitled upon attaining 21 to one half of the income of the residuary estate and after the death or remarriage of Winnie Chan to the whole of the income and capital of the residuary estate in equal shares
  • Declaration that the 1st defendant is not entitled to any share under the will