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.
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)
Legal Issues
- 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 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 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
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment