LAM CHUNG PING AND OTHERS v. CHAN YUET KUEN AND ANOTHER
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment because the Will and registered assent vested legal and beneficial ownership in plaintiffs; any licence or claim by the 1st Defendant was revoked by the eviction notice served in the deceased's lifetime and the handwritten Note did not establish a legally cognisable life or beneficial interest (and in any event would be revoked by the subsequent will); the Form A in the divorce proceedings cannot create subsisting ancillary relief after the death of the spouse; the 1st Defendant failed to plead or prove any viable legal claim; accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits, removal of the Form A and costs on an indemnity basis.
- Citation
- [2025] HKDC 552
- Parties
- 1st Plaintiff: Lam Chung Ping; 2nd Plaintiff: Lam Yin Suen; 3rd Plaintiff: Lam Chung Ping and Lam Yin Suen (as Executor and Executrix of the Estate of Fok Kam Fai, Deceased); 1st Defendant: Chan Yuet Kuen; 2nd Defendant: All Persons in Occupation of Office B on the 1st Floor, No.167 Queen's Road West, Hong Kong
- Court
- District Court
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 28 March 2025
- Case Number
- DCCJ2203/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Claim for Vacant Possession, Trespass and Mesne Profits Following Probate/land Dispute / Judgment (district Court)
- Outcome
- Final judgment for plaintiffs; counterclaim by 1st Defendant dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Vacant Possession, Mesne Profits, Form a (ancillary Relief), Eviction/licence, Pleading and Litigation Conduct, Indemnity Costs
- Source Language
- EN
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Lam Chung Ping
1st Plaintiff
Lam Yin Suen
2nd Plaintiff
Lam Chung Ping and Lam Yin Suen (as Executor and Executrix of the Estate of Fok Kam Fai, Deceased)
3rd Plaintiff
Chan Yuet Kuen
1st Defendant
All Persons in Occupation of Office B on the 1st Floor, No.167 Queen's Road West, Hong Kong
2nd Defendant
Procedural Posture
Claim for Vacant Possession, Trespass and Mesne Profits Following Probate/land Dispute / Judgment (district Court)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the 1st Defendant retained any legal or equitable interest in the Property after service of the deceased's eviction notice during his lifetime
- 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession and supplementary reliefs including mesne profits, injunction and removal of Form A
- 3 Validity and effect of the handwritten Note and the Form A filed in family proceedings after the deceased's death
Ratio Decidendi
Plaintiffs are entitled to judgment because the Will and registered assent vested legal and beneficial ownership in plaintiffs; any licence or claim by the 1st Defendant was revoked by the eviction notice served in the deceased's lifetime and the handwritten Note did not establish a legally cognisable life or beneficial interest (and in any event would be revoked by the subsequent will); the Form A in the divorce proceedings cannot create subsisting ancillary relief after the death of the spouse; the 1st Defendant failed to plead or prove any viable legal claim; accordingly plaintiffs are entitled to vacant possession, mesne profits, removal of the Form A and costs on an indemnity basis.
Court Disposition
Final judgment for plaintiffs; counterclaim by 1st Defendant dismissed
Orders
- Each of the defendants shall deliver vacant possession of Office B on the 1st Floor, No.167 Queen's Road West, Hong Kong to the plaintiffs by 4:30 pm on 25 April 2025 at the latest
- Each of the defendants is permanently prohibited, by themselves or via any agent, from entering or staying in any part of the Property from 4:30 pm on 25 April 2025 onwards
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