Hong Kong Judgment

Court of First Instance

RE FCP

On this page

Professional case brief

Research organized from the available case record

Source document

01

Holding and result

Court was satisfied FCP is incapable of managing his property and affairs but declined to appoint the father as Committee without further investigation into suitability and the proposed terms; the matter was adjourned and referred to the Official Solicitor for investigation and consideration for appointment as Committee; costs reserved until the adjourned hearing.

Court disposition

Application adjourned; no committee appointed at this stage; matter referred to Official Solicitor for investigation and consideration for appointment

Orders

  • Proceedings adjourned pending report by the Official Solicitor
  • Case referred to the Official Solicitor for further investigation and consideration that the Official Solicitor be appointed Committee
  • Costs: solicitor's fees of HK$26,000 and disbursements of HK$5,000 considered reasonable but award of costs deferred until adjourned hearing

02

Material facts

Parties

FCP

Alleged Mentally Incapacitated Person

Father of FCP

Applicant Counsel: Mr Patrick Burke of Messrs Burke, Fung & Li

Official Solicitor

Official Solicitor

Amounts and remedies

  • Damages Paid Into Court: HKD 22,000,000
  • Monthly Payments Under Personal Injuries Action: HKD 75,000
  • Monthly Rent of House in Fairview Park: HKD 15,000
  • Case Manager Monthly Charge: HKD 8,000
  • Case Manager Savings to Date: HKD 500,000
  • Applicant Solicitor Fees Claimed: HKD 26,000
  • Disbursements for Medical Fees Claimed: HKD 5,000

03

Procedural history

  1. Posture

    Application for Appointment of Committee Under Part II Mental Health Ordinance / Hearing of Application; Adjourned Pending Report by Official Solicitor

04

Questions and positions

Legal issues

Party arguments

Applicant
Applicant (father) sought appointment as Committee. Counsel submitted FCP is incapable and funds of $22,000,000 require proactive investment because Registrar's rate of return is insufficient; proposed powers include stock investment, liberty to instruct lawyers, remuneration and reimbursement to parents; current monthly payments of HK$75,000 were used for maintenance and family support and a property purchase is envisaged.
Respondent
Official Solicitor queried necessity of comprehensive investment powers and proposed remuneration/reimbursement provisions and requested investigation. Court raised concerns about father's capacity to manage investments given limited education, unemployment and back injury; case manager arrangement and current expenditures were also scrutinised.

05

Court’s reasoning

  1. 01

    Practice and authorities under Part II Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136 / judicial practice

    Court generally prefers appointment of a close relative as Committee when it is in the best interests of the patient

  2. 02

    Judicial discretion under Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136

    Court will only grant committee powers that are necessary and justified; broad investment and remuneration powers must be scrutinised

  3. 03

    Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136 / established court practice

    Court may refer matters and appoint or consider appointment of the Official Solicitor to investigate and act as Committee where suitability of proposed private appointee is in doubt

06

Ratio, limits and disposition

Ratio decidendi

Court was satisfied FCP is incapable of managing his property and affairs but declined to appoint the father as Committee without further investigation into suitability and the proposed terms; the matter was adjourned and referred to the Official Solicitor for investigation and consideration for appointment as Committee; costs reserved until the adjourned hearing.

Obiter and limits

  • Father has limited education and is unemployed due to back injury, casting doubt on his capacity to manage contemplated investments
  • Monthly payments of HK$75,000 did not equate to lifetime provision and were partly used for family maintenance; case manager has accumulated HK$500,000 in savings
  • Case manager charged about HK$8,000 per month and the arrangement is not a free ride
  • Registrar's investment return was said to be inadequate prompting proposal for pro‑active investment and future property purchase

Court disposition

Application adjourned; no committee appointed at this stage; matter referred to Official Solicitor for investigation and consideration for appointment

  • Proceedings adjourned pending report by the Official Solicitor
  • Case referred to the Official Solicitor for further investigation and consideration that the Official Solicitor be appointed Committee
  • Costs: solicitor's fees of HK$26,000 and disbursements of HK$5,000 considered reasonable but award of costs deferred until adjourned hearing

Source and reliance status

Court of First Instance · 27 August 2007

This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.

Judgment reading view

Judgment text

The complete available source text.

Source document

Court of First Instance

Judgment· 27 August 2007

RE FCP

bjbj HCMP 947/2007

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 947 OF 2007 ____ IN THE MATTER of an alleged mentally incapacitated person FCP and IN THE MATTER of Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136 ( the Ordinance ) ____ Before: Hon Fung J in Chambers (open to public) Date of Hearing: 17 August 2007 Date of Judgment: 27 August 2007 ____

J U DG M E N T ____ Application has been made by the father of FCP to be appointed the Committee of FCP under Part II of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) ( ). I am satisfied that FCP is incapable by reason of mental incapacity of managing and administering his property and affairs. However, I find that the appropriateness of the father of FCP to act as the Committee requires further investigation. The matters is adjourned pending a report by the Official Solicitor. FCP is now 19 years old. He was nearly drowned in a public swimming pool. Damages of $22 million were recovered upon settlement and paid into court. Under the auspices of the personal injuries action, $75,000 were paid out to the case manager each month for the maintenance of FCP. Prior to the award, the family resided in a public housing estate. Since then, a house in Fairview Park was rented at $15,000. Mr. Burke, solicitor for the applicant, frankly admitted that $75,000 per month out of $22 million would not see FCP throughout his life expectancy, and the monthly sum also went towards the maintenance of the whole family. In fact, the monthly expenditure did not amount to $75,000, and the case manager was managed to save up $500,000 so far. In the draft order of terms and powers of the Committee, Mr. Burke has included comprehensive powers of stock investments and liberty to instruct lawyers, as

well as remuneration of the Committee. The Official Solicitor has queried the necessity of such terms and powers. It is noted that besides the proposed remuneration of the Committee, provision has been made for reimbursement of the parents in looking after FCM. Mr. Burke submitted that the rate of return of investment of the sum in court by the Registrar falls short of the one envisaged as the basis of compensation. Hence, there must be pro-active investment to achieve a higher return. Further, it is envisaged that a property be purchased in due course. The court generally favours the appointment of a close relative as the Committee, if possible, as the interest of the patient is best understood and provided for. FCP s father was a chef. He only had junior high level education in the Mainland. He is now unemployed due to back injury. I doubt whether he appreciates the exigencies of the situation, especially in view of the incidence of investments to be contemplated of the Committe. I also note that the case manager is charging about $8,000 per month. The present arrangement is not a free ride option. Hence, I direct that the case be referred to the Official Solicitor for further investigation, with the consideration that the Official Solicitor be appointed the Committee. Mr. Burke has not prepared an skeleton bill of costs of the application. He submitted his fees are $26,000, and disbursement for medical fees $5,000. I consider those sums reasonable. But the award of costs is deferred until the adjourned hearing. (B. Fung) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court Mr Patrick BURKE of Messrs Burke, Fung & Li, for Applicant

PAGE - 1udk 1udk

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T U V XUok #Q#l> XUok #Q#l hccw (for Susan Kwan only).dot setup Microsoft Word 9.0 Judiciary Hong Kong Title Microsoft Word Document MSWordDoc Word.Document.8

Source wording is retained. Consult the source document for its original formatting and pagination.

Authorities

Authorities used by the court

Cases, legislation, regulations, and constitutional provisions identified in the available record.

Mental Health Ordinance, Cap. 136

Legislation

Legislation referenced in the available case record.

Case-aware research

Ask AI about this case

The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.

About this LexChat collection

This page organizes the available case record for research. Verify quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the source document. Corrections can be reported to hello@esheria.ai.

Legal information, not legal advice. Research summaries do not replace the judgment.