Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Enduring power of attorney

Legal area

Court

16 Jan 2026

LEUNG KAR HIN ROSS v. MA LAI FONG

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 383
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2304/2025

Although the executor under the Will is the starting person entitled to possession, the court departed from that starting point because overwhelming circumstances favoured the surviving spouse: Mother had capacity, a 62‑year relationship evidencing knowledge of the deceased's Soka Gakkai wishes, and credible concerns existed about exclusion and unexplained withdrawals that risked irreparable deprivation of Mother's opportunity to attend and conduct proper Soka Gakkai funeral rites; accordingly the court ordered that Mother take possession and arrange the funeral, with costs to Mother on a nis…
30 Apr 2025

WONG CHI HO JIMMY (suing as the sole executor of the estate of Wong Chung Ming and personally) v. WONG TAI WAI DAVID JASPER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1483
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP370/2022

Read fairly and in context and in a manner favourable to the defendant where ambiguity exists, the challenged statements were not proven to be false beyond reasonable doubt and the plaintiff therefore failed to establish the elements of contempt; the alleged inconsistencies did not amount to proven falsity.
19 Feb 2025

TSU SZE YUEN STERLING v. LAND REGISTRAR

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 722
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL388/2025

The EPOA does not itself affect any interest in the registered properties; it only identifies who can lawfully effect dealings in respect of the properties. Because the EPOA does not affect the land within the meaning of s2(1) LRO, it is not registrable and the applicant's leave application has no realistic prospect of success and is dismissed.
17 Jan 2024

YUEN KWOK LEUNG ERIC AND ANOTHER v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF MING CHOR PAO, DECEASED

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 174
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP262/2022

The court ordered sale because the 2019 Judgment conclusively established the plaintiffs' purchaser's lien, the Estate had not paid the sums due, no court had ordered a stay of execution pending appeal, the appellant advanced no arguable defence or triable issue, and summary disposal under Order 28 r4 was therefore appropriate; accordingly an order of sale with a 56‑day repayment window was granted and detailed sale and distribution directions were given.
17 May 2023

YUEN KWOK LEUNG ERIC AND ANOTHER v. MING CHOR PAO by her guardian ad litem CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCA 654
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/2020

The application for leave to appeal and for extension of time was dismissed because the applicant's almost 22‑month delay was unjustified, the intended appeal had no real prospect of success and did not raise a question of great general or public importance, and the 2nd defendant plainly lacked locus to pursue the counterclaim after the vendor's death; accordingly extension of time was futile and leave was refused.
27 Jul 2021

RE NLS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH4/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found NLS to be a mentally incapacitated person within the meaning of Part II MHO because the court‑observed interview, supported by the independent Court Expert (Dr Chung) and applicant expert (Dr Wong), demonstrated significant impairments (notably failure to recall large gifts/withdrawals, poor insight into legal expenditures and inability to manage complex business/rental decisions) so that NLS cannot manage and administer his property and affairs.
19 Apr 2021

YUEN KWOK LEUNG ERIC AND ANOTHER v. MING CHOR PAO by her guardian ad litem CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2021] HKCA 476
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV36/2020

The appeal was struck out because it was plain and obvious that the 2nd defendant lacked locus to pursue or enforce the agreement after the vendor's death and after a valid representation order appointed a representative for the estate; compounded by the 2nd defendant's failure to lodge the sealed judgment and prosecute the appeal with due diligence, the appeal was frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process warranting dismissal and costs.
31 Mar 2021

FNG v. BCJ

Citation

[2021] HKCA 451
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV41/2020

Costs follow the event; the Attorney did not act in the appeal in her capacity as trustee or personal representative but was resisting on her own personal interest, so trustee/fund basis was inapplicable; the appropriate basis is party‑and‑party; therefore the Plaintiff must pay the Defendant party‑and‑party costs fixed at HK$350,000 (inclusive of a 50% reduction of the Attorney's claimed costs for submissions on costs).
8 Jun 2020

WONG CHI HO JIMMY v. WONG OI LUN, by Stephen Liu Yiu Keung, Koo Chi Sum and Andrew Koo Chi Ho, her guardians ad litem WONG TAI WAI DAVID JASPER

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1073
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1672/2016

The court found that Jimmy has locus to seek relief under s11(1) in the circumstances (the Committee was before the court and supported the relief; s11 does not require production solely to the applicant), and there was strong prima facie evidence of misuse of WOL's assets by David under the EPOA. Accordingly the court exercised its discretion to order the 2nd defendant to produce records and accounts for investigation and ordered costs against the 2nd defendant.
30 Dec 2019

FNG v. BCJ

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 3089
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP776/2019

The enduring power of attorney was revoked by the donor's death and therefore there was no present attorney able or authorised to take the prospective steps required by the Order (to instruct and remunerate an Auditor from the Live Estate); implementation of the Order would improperly interfere with administration of the Death Estate, which is for the executors; accordingly the Order must be stayed and any accounting or redress for breaches by the former attorney falls to the executors or other probate processes, not enforcement of that Section 11(1)(a) Order after death.