LAM WING LEUNG THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF LAM YIM MAN DECEASED v. KWONG KIT OI

LAM WING LEUNG THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF LAM YIM MAN DECEASED v. KWONG KIT OI

The court applied the governing standard that particulars are ordered only when necessary to dispose fairly or save costs. It found the defendant's pleadings already gave sufficient particulars on testamentary capacity and that most requests sought evidence or were peripheral. Only requests directly relevant to the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LAM WING LEUNG THE EXECUTOR OF THE LAST WILL OF LAM YIM MAN DECEASED v. KWONG KIT OI
Parties
Plaintiff / Executor: Lam Wing Leung; Defendant: Kwong Kit Oi; Deceased: Lam Yim Man
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
28 February 2017
Case Number
HCAP31/2015
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars
Outcome
Summons dismissed except defendant ordered to answer requests 31 and 32 within 28 days; costs orders made in favour of defendant
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Further and Better Particulars, Undue Influence, Letters of Administration, Costs
Source Language
en
Probate Succession Civil Procedure Testamentary Capacity Further and Better Particulars Undue Influence Letters of Administration Costs

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lam Wing Leung

Plaintiff / Executor

Kwong Kit Oi

Defendant

Lam Yim Man

Deceased

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Interlocutory Application for Further and Better Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deceased had testamentary capacity when executing the 2013 will
  2. 2 Validity of the 2013 will
  3. 3 Whether the defendant must provide further and better particulars to the plaintiff

Ratio Decidendi

The court applied the governing standard that particulars are ordered only when necessary to dispose fairly or save costs. It found the defendant's pleadings already gave sufficient particulars on testamentary capacity and that most requests sought evidence or were peripheral. Only requests directly relevant to the counterclaim about the plaintiff's suitability as administrator (requests 31 and 32) were necessary to prevent surprise and were therefore ordered; the remainder were dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed except defendant ordered to answer requests 31 and 32 within 28 days; costs orders made in favour of defendant

Orders

  • Defendant to file and serve Answers to requests 31 and 32 within 28 days of the order
  • The summons filed 18 August 2016 is dismissed except as to the order requiring Answers to requests 31 and 32