HO HIP LIK and Another v. KWAN MAN HO and Others

HO HIP LIK and Another v. KWAN MAN HO and Others

Judge found plaintiffs guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay from mid-1992 but concluded defendants failed to prove that the delay created a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice; exercising discretion, court refused to strike out the action.

Citation
HO HIP LIK and Another v. KWAN MAN HO and Others
Parties
1st Plaintiff: HO HIP LIK; 2nd Plaintiff: HO HIP HAU; 1st Defendant: KWAN MAN HO; 2nd Defendant: KWAN MAN YUNG; 3rd Defendant: KWAN MAN YING; 4th Defendant: KWAN MAN KWAN; 5th Defendant: KWAN MAN POR; 6th Defendant: KWAN SHUI WAI; 7th Defendant: KWAN YUET CHUN; 8th Defendant: KWAN YUET CHAI; 9th Defendant: KWAN SIU YUK; 10th Defendant: KWAN WAN YU; 11th Defendant: KWAN FUNG SIU
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
6 November 1995
Case Number
HCAP6/1986
Procedural Posture
Probate (will and Codicils Validity) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Application to strike out refused
Legal Topics
Will Validity, Codicil, Testamentary Capacity, Undue Influence, Want of Prosecution, Lis Pendens, Settlement Negotiations
Source Language
EN
Probate Wills and Succession Civil Procedure Equity (trusts) Will Validity Codicil Testamentary Capacity Undue Influence +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HO HIP LIK

1st Plaintiff

HO HIP HAU

2nd Plaintiff

KWAN MAN HO

1st Defendant

KWAN MAN YUNG

2nd Defendant

KWAN MAN YING

3rd Defendant

KWAN MAN KWAN

4th Defendant

KWAN MAN POR

5th Defendant

KWAN SHUI WAI

6th Defendant

KWAN YUET CHUN

7th Defendant

KWAN YUET CHAI

8th Defendant

KWAN SIU YUK

9th Defendant

KWAN WAN YU

10th Defendant

KWAN FUNG SIU

11th Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate (will and Codicils Validity) / Interlocutory Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the plaintiffs
  2. 2 Whether delay caused a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice to defendants
  3. 3 Validity and execution of will and codicils under Wills Ordinance Cap.30, s.5(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Judge found plaintiffs guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay from mid-1992 but concluded defendants failed to prove that the delay created a substantial risk of an unfair trial or serious prejudice; exercising discretion, court refused to strike out the action.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused

Orders

  • Application to strike out for want of prosecution refused