AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

Because agreements to marry are unenforceable by statute (Cap.23 s.23), and because the defendant is neither a beneficiary under the Will nor entitled on intestacy, she lacks standing to oppose the grant of probate; equitable claims and claims under Cap.481 are separate remedies and cannot be used as defences in the probate action; therefore striking out the Defence and Counterclaim was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE
Parties
Plaintiff (executrix): Yeung Man; Defendant: Wan
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 August 2009
Case Number
HCAP19/2008
Procedural Posture
Probate Action / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Out Defence and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; strike out of Defence and Counterclaim affirmed.
Legal Topics
Validity of Will, Standing to Contest Probate, Breach of Promise to Marry, Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance Claims, Equitable Interest in Property
Source Language
EN
Probate Wills and Estates Inheritance Law Family Law Contract Law Validity of Will Standing to Contest Probate Breach of Promise to Marry +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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yeung Man

Plaintiff (executrix)

Wan

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Action / Appeal From Master's Order Striking Out Defence and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether breach of promise to marry is actionable and can be relied on as a defence in a probate action
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has locus standi to challenge the grant of probate or the grant of letters of administration
  3. 3 Whether allegations of lack of testamentary capacity and bias in the medical certificate confer standing to oppose probate

Ratio Decidendi

Because agreements to marry are unenforceable by statute (Cap.23 s.23), and because the defendant is neither a beneficiary under the Will nor entitled on intestacy, she lacks standing to oppose the grant of probate; equitable claims and claims under Cap.481 are separate remedies and cannot be used as defences in the probate action; therefore striking out the Defence and Counterclaim was correct and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; strike out of Defence and Counterclaim affirmed.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim struck out