HU MING TAT AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG RUI AND OTHERS

HU MING TAT AND ANOTHER v. ZHANG RUI AND OTHERS

The court held that the liabilities of the Estate must be discharged in accordance with the statutory order in s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1 because the will contained no contrary intention to exonerate the HK properties; the clauses relied on did not deal with payment of the deceased's general debts nor vary the statutory order; the confirmation notes were inadmissible under s23B as the will's language was not ambiguous; dividends or shareholder loans could not be compelled to satisfy debts; therefore the residuary estate is to be applied first and remaining liabilities met rateably from specific legacies.

Citation
[2022] HKCFI 1947
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HU MING TAT; 2nd Plaintiff: HU SAI TAT; 1st Defendant: ZHANG RUI; 2nd Defendant (minor) by Zhang Rui Guardian Ad Litem: HU WANG TAT JACKY; 3rd Defendant (minor) by Zhang Rui Guardian Ad Litem: HU HO YEE HUEY; 4th Defendant: HU PUI YEE AMY
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
27 June 2022
Case Number
HCMP566/2020
Procedural Posture
Probate and Administration (order 85 R 2) / Decision on Originating Summons (reasons for Decision)
Outcome
Held for Plaintiffs in main: estate to be administered in accordance with s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1; Madam Zhang's contrary construction rejected
Legal Topics
Statutory Order for Payment of Debts, Construction of Wills, Residuary Estate Vs Specific Legacies, Application of Estate Assets to Creditors, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence Under Wills Ordinance S23 B, Declaration of Dividends and Directors' Duties
Source Language
EN

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

Parties

HU MING TAT

1st Plaintiff

HU SAI TAT

2nd Plaintiff

ZHANG RUI

1st Defendant

HU WANG TAT JACKY

2nd Defendant (minor) by Zhang Rui Guardian Ad Litem

HU HO YEE HUEY

3rd Defendant (minor) by Zhang Rui Guardian Ad Litem

HU PUI YEE AMY

4th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate and Administration (order 85 R 2) / Decision on Originating Summons (reasons for Decision)

  1. 1 Whether the HK real properties devised to specific beneficiaries are to be applied to discharge the deceased's liabilities or are exonerated by the will
  2. 2 Whether the will (Clauses 3,4,8(a)) or the confirmation notes vary the statutory order under s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1
  3. 3 Whether extrinsic evidence (2016 and 2017 confirmation notes) is admissible under s23B Wills Ordinance to show contrary intention

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the liabilities of the Estate must be discharged in accordance with the statutory order in s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1 because the will contained no contrary intention to exonerate the HK properties; the clauses relied on did not deal with payment of the deceased's general debts nor vary the statutory order; the confirmation notes were inadmissible under s23B as the will's language was not ambiguous; dividends or shareholder loans could not be compelled to satisfy debts; therefore the residuary estate is to be applied first and remaining liabilities met rateably from specific legacies.

Court Disposition

Held for Plaintiffs in main: estate to be administered in accordance with s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1; Madam Zhang's contrary construction rejected

Orders

  • Estate to be administered in accordance with the statutory order in s63(3) PAO and Part II of Schedule 1 (residuary estate applied first; remaining liabilities to be discharged rateably from specific legacies)
  • Costs of the parties in respect of the originating summons to be paid out of the estate