Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Duty to render accounts

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2025

LIU HUIYI v. LAU CHUNG FOON (as the administrator of the estate of TSANG YUK HING and in his own capacity) AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1061
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1850/2023

Removal of the 1st defendant was justified because he failed over many years to administer the estate, occupied the principal estate property creating a serious conflict of interest, refused to sell the property and failed to furnish any inventories or accounts; the plaintiff was suitable to replace him and the 2nd defendant was unsuitable due to his expressed desire that the incumbent remain in occupation and his failure to file proper opposition.
7 Feb 2025

BONG PIK LI AND OTHERS v. TANG YI, AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF BONG WON LING, DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 612
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP42/2023

The court found plaintiffs established serious issues to be tried as to the Deceased's domicile at death and as to material non-disclosure (including failure to disclose the 2014 Revocable Trust and transfers of Mainland funds), and that, when viewed holistically with failures to account and the breakdown of relations, the balance of convenience favored granting an interlocutory injunction restraining D1 from administering or dealing with the Estate pending trial; accordingly injunction was granted and directions for a speedy trial ordered.
14 Jan 2025

LOK WAI KWAN AND OTHERS v. WONG CHI KAU, the executor of the estate of SIU OI CHU, deceased

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 269
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP936/2022

The court ordered the account and removed the defendant because he repeatedly breached court directions and the Account Order, failed in the duty to account, caused substantial delay in administration, made unexplained distributions excluding a named beneficiary (raising serious concerns including unreceived cashier orders), and the beneficiaries supported removal; replacement by the 1st plaintiff was appropriate given the nature of remaining assets and united beneficiary support.
25 Nov 2024

KU CAMEY v. KU SCARLET, the executrix of the estate of CHEN ELSIE, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3316
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1482/2022

On the undisputed contemporaneous correspondence and material evidence, the executrix failed to render proper accounts with supporting documents after repeated requests, and improperly conditioned distribution on beneficiaries accepting unverified calculations; these breaches prejudiced a beneficiary and justified summary judgment removing the executrix and appointing an independent professional administrator, with further orders for production of inventory and account and refusal of security for costs.
6 Feb 2024

LAU WAI LING WINNIE v. LAU YU MING DAVID AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 354
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP2/2023

The court removed the three executors under PAO s.33(3) because they failed to render accounts, were dilatory in administration, two took or failed to account for estate assets (jewellery and rental income), conflicts and breakdown of relations made proper administration impossible, and the applicant was a suitable replacement administrator; consequential orders including accounts, delivery up, vesting and costs were granted.
3 Dec 2021

CHAN YEUK NAM AND OTHERS v. CHAN YEUK SHAN (as the Executrix of the Estate of Chan Chuk Kan, as the Executrix of the Estate of Leung Lan and in her own capacity)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 3649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1530/2020

The court removed the defendant as executrix under s33(3) because on the facts she had conflicting interests in key estate properties, exhibited mismanagement and unreasonable delay in realising and distributing estate assets, failed to render up-to-date accounts and supporting documents, and her conduct created a real risk of obstructing due administration and harming beneficiaries' welfare; these factors justified removal and appointment of an independent administrator, and an order for a full account and costs against her.
10 Sept 2021

CHAN KWONG MING AND ANOTHER v. YAO YUERONG (姚月容) , as the sole administratrix of the Estate of CHAN SHU HOK (陳樹鶴)

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2698
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1873/2018

The administratrix was removed under section 33(3) of the Probate and Administration Ordinance because she failed to render accounts, delayed distribution for many years, appears to have disappeared and may have misappropriated estate assets, such that removal was necessary for due and proper administration and to protect beneficiaries' interests; P1 was appointed administrator given beneficiaries' support and lack of alternative candidate.
19 Mar 2021

SOONG KAM LEE v. SUNG CHOI FAT As Administrator of the estate of SUNG CHUN FAT STANLEY deceased

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 619
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP16/2020

Defendant was removed, the grant revoked and lodging dispensed with because he was absent, unresponsive, had materially failed to administer the principal asset (the Property) for over a year, failed to communicate with beneficiaries, and posed a real risk of ongoing non‑cooperation; appointment of the plaintiff as administrator was necessary and in beneficiaries' interests and she was suitably placed to administer the estate and investigate potential claims; defendant must still furnish true accounts and pay costs.
23 Jul 2019

YUNG SIU CHEE MARGARET AND OTHERS v. CHOY CHING WA FIONNE AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1767
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1682/2016

The court held that substantial weight must be given to the testator's express provision for remuneration in the will; the executrices failed to discharge the onus of showing the will's fixed remuneration was inadequate or that special circumstances existed. Consequently the court would not exercise its discretion to grant additional remuneration to Fionne Choy beyond the amount provided in the will. Further, because the executrices did not produce pre-litigation advice or disclose strengths and weaknesses, the court would not have authorized the PRC proceedings and would not allow their cost…
15 Oct 2013

CHENG TANG KAM YUNG v. TANG KAM CHEUNG AND ANOTHERR

Citation

CHENG TANG KAM YUNG v. TANG KAM CHEUNG AND ANOTHERR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP147/2008

The 1st defendant failed to justify a stay because he did not demonstrate that the appointment of a professional administrator would render his appeal nugatory or that his grounds were sufficiently arguable; he remained administrator until replacement and had acted post-judgment, his claimed best endeavours and outstanding accounts lacked credibility, and on the evidence the court was entitled to remove him and appoint a professional administrator; therefore both summonses for stay and interim capacity were dismissed and a professional administrator (single appointee) was appointed with costs…