TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER

TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER

Clause 2's phrase '名下' is to be read in its ordinary sense as 'belonging to' the testator and therefore includes property beneficially owned by him though registered in others' names; the will is unambiguous in context, covers the AAIE/AAS/EnGro interests and avoids an implausible partial intestacy; extrinsic evidence under s.23B was unnecessary and would not have changed the outcome.

Citation
TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER
Parties
1st Appellant: Tan Cheng Gay; 2nd Appellant: Tan Yok Koon; 3rd Appellant: Tan Choo Pin; 4th Appellant: Tan Chin Hoon; 1st Respondent (executrix/trustee): Tan Choo Suan; 2nd Respondent (watching Brief): Secretary for Justice
Court
Court of Final Appeal
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
5 November 2015
Case Number
FACV3/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Final Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Will Construction, Extrinsic Evidence (s.23 B Wills Ordinance), Partial Intestacy, Joint Will, Life Interest, Beneficial Ownership of Shares
Source Language
EN
Wills and Probate Trusts and Equity Succession Charity Law Civil Appeal Will Construction Extrinsic Evidence (s.23 B Wills Ordinance) Partial Intestacy +3 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Cheng Gay

1st Appellant

Tan Yok Koon

2nd Appellant

Tan Choo Pin

3rd Appellant

Tan Chin Hoon

4th Appellant

Tan Choo Suan

1st Respondent (executrix/trustee)

Secretary for Justice

2nd Respondent (watching Brief)

Procedural Posture

Civil Final Appeal / Judgment of the Court of Final Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 2 phrase '名下' ('under our names') in the joint will excludes property held by others on trust for the testator
  2. 2 Whether extrinsic evidence is admissible under s.23B Wills Ordinance and, if admissible, whether it alters the construction
  3. 3 Whether AAIE and AAS shareholdings and underlying EnGro shares fall within the will or form part of a partial intestacy

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 2's phrase '名下' is to be read in its ordinary sense as 'belonging to' the testator and therefore includes property beneficially owned by him though registered in others' names; the will is unambiguous in context, covers the AAIE/AAS/EnGro interests and avoids an implausible partial intestacy; extrinsic evidence under s.23B was unnecessary and would not have changed the outcome.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Order nisi that appellants pay to the respondent the costs of and occasioned by this appeal