Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deed of family arrangement

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2025

YIU CHING KUM AND ANOTHER v. YIU HO WING

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4053
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1654/2020

The DFA is admissible (or its material terms proved by secondary evidence and admissions), is not a stamped-chargeable transfer of beneficial interest in China Ease shares, and creates an express trust such that the Defendant holds 3,000 shares in China Ease on trust for the Plaintiffs in equal shares; the Chinese Document lacked the requisite certainties and did not create any trust in Defendant's favour; Defendant's allegations of misrepresentation, non-disclosure, abandonment and delay fail and he is barred from rescission; Defendant breached his trustee duties by refusing to transfer and…
11 Jul 2025

TSANG LIN YAU LINDA (sue as the Administratrix De Bonis Non of the Estate of the late LEE WONG FUN CHONG also known as LEE WONG FUN CHONG Florence) v. LEE JUN SING AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2927
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1114/2022

The First DFA was valid and binding: the Plaintiff's non est factum defence failed on all three limbs, her lack of appointment as administratrix de bonis non at the time of signing did not affect the validity of the DFA entered into as a legatee and as executrix once communicated, and there was no estoppel preventing the Defendants from relying on the First DFA; accordingly the counterclaim compelling transfer of the Share to the 1st Defendant succeeds and the Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2 Feb 2024

MOORTHY SELVARAJ (as one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYA SELVARAJ, Deceased) v. KARUPAYEE AMMAL (as the administratrix and one of the beneficiaries of the estate of KARUPAYASELVARAJ, Deceased) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 403
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA413/2016

Plaintiff failed to prove on a prima facie or balance of probabilities that Mother agreed the DFA or the Oral Agreement; documentary record and objective facts undermine the claim and alleged part performance is not substantiated as a transfer by Mother; accordingly the contractual claims fail. A professional administrator should be appointed to replace the deceased administratrix; on the evidence the economical and suitable choice is Mat Ng of Grant Thornton. Costs of the failed DFA and Oral Agreement claims are to be paid by the Plaintiff to the 2nd and 5th Defendants.
26 Apr 2023

WENG JENNY WAI YUM v. WENG WAI CHONG RICHARD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1244
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP5/2021

The court, exercising jurisdiction under Order 85 r 2, ordered the sale of the Property at market price as supported by the independent valuations; a dissent by one or more administrators does not permit them to frustrate a sale that reflects market value; the 1st–3rd defendants must make statutory declarations as to possession or custody of the title deeds; costs and sale expenses are to be paid out of the deceased's estate.
5 Dec 2022

LAM KA WAI REBECCA AND ANOTHER v. LAM JENNY, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAM KAM WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3653
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1014/2021

There were reasonable grounds for forensic investigation into the Subject Assets (the GTE Sum and the Rainbow Rich loan) given conflicting explanations, incomplete documentary support and accounting entries; forensic accounting expertise was required; accordingly the court removed the existing administrators and appointed Derek Lai and Guy Norman of Deloitte (as professional administrators) to investigate and administer the estate, with costs reserved.
27 Apr 2022

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

[2022] HKCA 543
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV26/2020

The Court allowed the appeal: the judge erred in finding non est factum was established because the defendant was negligent in signing; the trial judge made material errors in assessing evidence and drawing adverse inferences (including reliance on an ineffective 1961 will and unjustified failure-to-call inference regarding the solicitor); the Deed and Assignment are joint instruments and a declaration voiding them could not properly be granted as between only two parties without joinder of all affected parties and the executor capacity; section 18 Limitation Ordinance did not bar the plainti…
16 Mar 2021

KIU YUK as Administratrix of the estate of TING WAI MAN, Deceased v. TING FEI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1022/2019

The court held that the short form declaration (Form 1-3-2, pages 106-107 of the Hearing Bundle) is necessary to carry the DFA into effect and granted the plaintiff's order compelling the defendants to execute that declaration, with the annexure "A" in the proposed order amended to refer to pages 106-107, to be executed in the presence of Ms Tam.
6 Jan 2020

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

[2020] HKCA 32
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP227/2019

Leave to appeal was granted because the court considered it reasonably arguable that the trial judge erred in his finding on non est factum and in declaring the Deed and Vesting Assignment void between the plaintiff and defendant in the absence of the other parties, thereby justifying appellate scrutiny.
27 Feb 2019

WONG SUET FOON SHIRLY v. COLLECTOR OF STAMP REVENUE

Citation

[2019] HKDC 268
Court

District Court
Case number

DCSA5/2016

The Assent operated as an assignment conveying legal and beneficial interests in excess of intestacy entitlements and therefore constituted a voluntary disposition inter vivos chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty at the higher Scale 1 rate (HK$16,650); the Deed was not chargeable and s29AL and s27(5) exemptions did not apply.
31 Jan 2019

SOSHILA KESWANI v. MOTIRAM KESWANI

Citation

[2019] HKDC 135
Court

District Court
Case number

DCCJ579/2013

On the balance of probabilities the defendant mistakenly believed the documents were routine probate documents, the solicitor did not explain their nature, the plaintiff was likely the instructing party to procure the documents, and the defendant was not negligent in signing; therefore non est factum applies and the Deed and Assignment are void as between plaintiff and defendant, defeating plaintiff’s claim and entitling defendant to a declaration.