LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN

LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN

The appeal is dismissed because established authority and principle hold that a personal representative who brings proceedings is personally liable for costs absent a special order; the personal representative's right to be indemnified from the estate does not protect third parties from enforcing costs against the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
LEE SHUK YEE v. EDWIN KWOK WING YUN
Parties
Debtor / Appellant / Administratrix: Lee Shuk Yee; Petitioner / Trustee in Bankruptcy: Edwin Kwok Wing Yun
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 May 2006
Case Number
CACV366/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment — Appeal Dismissed With Written Reasons
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Liability of Personal Representative for Costs, Indemnity Out of Estate, Bankruptcy Petition, Service Irregularity (rule 203), Creditors Committee Permission (s.61), Costs on Indemnity Basis
Source Language
en
Bankruptcy Civil Costs Trusts and Estates Civil Procedure Liability of Personal Representative for Costs Indemnity Out of Estate Bankruptcy Petition Service Irregularity (rule 203) +2 more

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Shuk Yee

Debtor / Appellant / Administratrix

Edwin Kwok Wing Yun

Petitioner / Trustee in Bankruptcy

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment — Appeal Dismissed With Written Reasons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an administratrix who commences proceedings is personally liable for costs to a third party absent a special order
  2. 2 Whether costs ordered against a personal representative are recoverable only from the estate and not personally
  3. 3 Whether irregularity in service under rule 203 warranted setting aside proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because established authority and principle hold that a personal representative who brings proceedings is personally liable for costs absent a special order; the personal representative's right to be indemnified from the estate does not protect third parties from enforcing costs against the representative; the judge properly exercised discretion under rule 203 and the absence of section 61 permission did not invalidate the proceedings against the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs in favour of the petitioner
  • Order nisi awarding costs on an indemnity basis against the appellant (decision as to basis of taxation adjourned)