Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Grant of probate

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2025

毛翠萍及另二人對毛傑洪

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2453
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP38/2023

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…
3 Aug 2021

YUEN SAU PING MERITA v. The personal representative of TSANG WAI YEE BELINDA, deceased AND OTHERS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2158
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2521/2016

The proposed 'reconstitution' of the 1st Defendant by discontinuing and immediately re-joining the same defendant is not a concept recognised by the Rules of the High Court, would improperly circumvent the extension procedure under RHC O 6 r 8(2) and the duty to serve the writ promptly, and therefore the Master’s dismissal of paragraphs 1–4 was correct; the proper remedies are to apply for an extension of the writ or to issue a fresh writ.
5 Mar 2020

KWOK MAY SIN KYLIE (IN HER PERSONAL CAPACITY AND IN HER CAPACITY AS THE INTENDED PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF KWOK MEI LUNG, DECEASED) v. FU KE AN

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 343
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP302/2018

The LA Grant was revoked and probate granted to the plaintiff because a valid solicitor‑drafted will existed and had been properly attested and proved, and because the defendant obtained the ex parte letters of administration without disclosing material facts and without exercising the required due diligence; accordingly the defendant must bear the costs of the proceedings on an indemnity basis.
11 Jul 2019

LAU KIN WING KEN AND ANOTHER v. DENG YUJIAO One of the Proving Executors of the Estate of Lau Heung, Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCA 769
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV49/2018

On the facts the trial judge was entitled to find the Deceased was not suffering from dementia at execution and that, applying a holistic assessment (instructions from Deceased, medical examination, solicitor's attendance, rational dispositions and expert evidence), the Defendants discharged the burden to prove testamentary capacity and affirmative knowledge and approval; appeal dismissed.
28 Jun 2019

TSANG WING KWAI v. TSANG WING FAI

Citation

[2019] HKCA 699
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV239/2018

The motion was dismissed because the defendant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance as required by s22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance; the grounds consisted of factual allegations and re-argument of matters already considered, and the court had already recognised that an executor can be removed, so leave was refused.
18 Jan 2019

CHEUNG TAI SHING v. CHEUNG CHING FONG AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2018

The court was satisfied under s 5(2) of the Wills Ordinance that there could be no reasonable doubt the two documents embodied the deceased's testamentary intentions, therefore both were deemed duly executed; insofar as they were inconsistent Document A prevailed; probate was accordingly granted to the plaintiff.
19 Jan 2018

HO WAI PING v. HO KA MAN CARMEN

Citation

[2018] HKCA 31
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV17/2016

Leave to appeal was refused because the questions advanced did not raise errors of law of sufficient general importance; they amounted to reargument of factual issues and contested credibility resolved concurrently by the courts below, and no novel construction of s.5(2) was argued before the Court of Appeal.
12 Jul 2017

CLEVER OCEAN GROUP LTD v. AMYLINEAR INTERNATIONAL LTD

Citation

CLEVER OCEAN GROUP LTD v. AMYLINEAR INTERNATIONAL LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3596/2016

Applicant demonstrated current impracticability to convene EGMs and demonstrated on the affidavit and expert evidence that Ms Liu validly holds the BVI grant and presently has authority to act; there is no credible evidence that the BVI grant will be set aside or that appointment of a co-administrator will practically undermine her authority, therefore the court will exercise its discretion under section 570 to order convening of EGMs.
5 Aug 2016

LAI HOI YEE v. KWAN CHI PUN, the Personal Representative of the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased

Citation

LAI HOI YEE v. KWAN CHI PUN, the Personal Representative of the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2078/2015

Judge found the defendants failed to prove the alleged inter vivos arrangements or any equitable interest: Lai's evidence was unreliable and the Reply did not evidence an intention to vest beneficial interest in Hoi Yee; there was no credible evidence of a secret trust; on s.4 the applicant failed the first hurdle because she had been provided for (notably by an insurance payment) and no special circumstances established to render the Will unreasonable; therefore judgment for Kwan, dismissal of counterclaim and dismissal of s.4 claim, with possession orders and ancillary undertakings by Kwan…
5 Aug 2016

KWAN CHI PUN in his personal capacity and the executor of the estate of Kwan Sui Lin, deceased v. LAI HOI YEE AND ANOTHER

Citation

KWAN CHI PUN in his personal capacity and the executor of the estate of Kwan Sui Lin, deceased v. LAI HOI YEE AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA557/2014

The court found the defendants failed to prove any constructive trust, secret trust or other equitable proprietary interest because the oral and retrospective evidence (principally Lai) was unreliable and unsupported by contemporaneous documents; the s.4 claim failed at the first stage because the applicant had already received substantial policy proceeds and there were no special circumstances or moral obligation making the Will's omission unreasonable; accordingly title and possession remain with Kwan and the equitable claims and s.4 relief are dismissed, subject to Kwan's undertaking which…