ROSEANNA IP MAN SUM AND OTHERS v. HENRY IP MAN SHAN AND ANOTHER

ROSEANNA IP MAN SUM AND OTHERS v. HENRY IP MAN SHAN AND ANOTHER

The will dated 6 January 1982 is valid and duly executed; the testator was of sound mind, memory and understanding when he executed it; the alleged delusion that the sons were 'dishonest' did not amount to a mental defect operative on the testamentary disposition; and the plaintiffs did not procure the will by direct or indirect undue influence. Probate is to be granted accordingly.

Citation
ROSEANNA IP MAN SUM AND OTHERS v. HENRY IP MAN SHAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
Deceased: Ip Ching Ping; Plaintiff (executrix): Roseanna Ip Man Sum; Plaintiff (executrix): Marion Yip Han Hoi; Plaintiff (executrix): Henrietta Ip Man Hing; 1st Defendant: Henry Ip Man Shan; 2nd Defendant: Sammy Ip Man Ho
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
13 July 1988
Case Number
HCAP3/1984
Procedural Posture
Probate Will Validity / Judgment (high Court, Probate Jurisdiction) 13 July 1988
Outcome
Decree pronouncing for the force and validity of the will dated 6 January 1982 in solemn form.
Legal Topics
Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Delusion and Will Effectiveness, Formal Execution of Wills, Family Disputes Over Estate
Source Language
EN
Probate Wills and Succession Trusts Family Law Company Law Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence Delusion and Will Effectiveness +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ip Ching Ping

Deceased

Roseanna Ip Man Sum

Plaintiff (executrix)

Marion Yip Han Hoi

Plaintiff (executrix)

Henrietta Ip Man Hing

Plaintiff (executrix)

Henry Ip Man Shan

1st Defendant

Sammy Ip Man Ho

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Will Validity / Judgment (high Court, Probate Jurisdiction) 13 July 1988

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will was the valid last will and testament
  2. 2 Whether the testator was of sound mind, memory and understanding when executing the will
  3. 3 Whether the testator suffered an irrational delusion (that his sons were dishonest) that had an operative effect on the will

Ratio Decidendi

The will dated 6 January 1982 is valid and duly executed; the testator was of sound mind, memory and understanding when he executed it; the alleged delusion that the sons were 'dishonest' did not amount to a mental defect operative on the testamentary disposition; and the plaintiffs did not procure the will by direct or indirect undue influence. Probate is to be granted accordingly.

Court Disposition

Decree pronouncing for the force and validity of the will dated 6 January 1982 in solemn form.

Orders

  • Will declared last will and testament and probate granted in solemn form
  • Further hearing reserved to consider application to exclude Clause 7 from probate and to determine costs