Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
Hong Kong decisions
Decisions matching the current search
The Court of First Instance held that post-will letters of wishes may be effective, text messages can qualify, and the April 2020 text was the deceased’s last letter of wishes.
The court authorised a statutory will for CVB after finding she lacked testamentary capacity and that the proposed disposition was in her best interests.
The court refused to compel a will witness to deliver a pre-trial affidavit; existing procedure permitting viva voce examination of attesting witnesses at trial is adequate, and even if the court possessed a power to require pre-trial affidavits the court would not exercise it in this case.
Source excerpt
The court granted summary judgment: the 9 August 2012 will was duly executed, on its face reasonable, and the evidence (solicitor's affidavit, witnesses, family evidence) established on the balance of probabilities that the deceased had testamentary capacity and knew and approved the will; the defendant's allegations lacked particulars and credible medical evidence (the CT report was equivocal and not a clinical diagnosis), thus no triable issue was raised to defeat summary judgment and the earlier grant of administration must be revoked and probate granted to the third plaintiff with costs a…
Source excerpt
Court held the Defendant had a 14.25% beneficial interest in the Property and that the 2019 Will was valid, revoking probate under the 2017 Will.
The court granted leave to discontinue and ordered the executor to pay 80% of the costs personally, with separate trustee-basis costs recoverable from the estate.
Court of Appeal upheld probate of a Chinese will, rejected the challenge based on capacity and knowledge, and held the appeal judge’s copying did not alter the final result.
Probate judgment over Lim Por Yen’s estate. The court found the 2004 will invalid for lack of testamentary capacity and knowledge and approval.
The Court of First Instance allowed the plaintiff to amend her pleadings to add undue influence in a will challenge, despite delay, because prejudice and failure were not established.
The orders of 6 March 2024 and 27 March 2024 were not made under Order 1B r.2(4)-(5) because the cancellation of the three defendant summonses was made after a substantive hearing on 6 March at which both parties were present and heard; the appellant's reliance on Order 1B r.2(4)-(5) was a misreading and the appeal had no merit, therefore the appeal was dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs on a provisional basis.
Source excerpt
Explore more
