Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-contentious probate rules

Legal area

Court

11 Sept 2023

LAM MAY POR v. THE ESTATE OF CHAN CHING WOON, DECEASED

Citation

[2023] HKDC 1219
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP1484/2021

On uncontradicted evidence plaintiff proved continuous factual possession and intent to possess from mid-1998, and having possessed the Property for at least 12 years before commencement of proceedings, sections 7 and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance extinguished the defendant’s title and conferred an indefeasible possessory title on the plaintiff; procedural objections regarding notification of the Official Administrator or bona vacantia were immaterial where Government/DoJ declined to claim and no evidence supported executor de son tort.
29 Feb 2012

YEE KWOK CHUN AND ANOTHER v. YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT AND ANOTHER

Citation

YEE KWOK CHUN AND ANOTHER v. YU KWOK LEUNG ALBERT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCA4070/2010

Given entrenched division and mutual distrust among beneficiaries, the practical complexity of administering an estate heavily composed of company shares and non-liquid assets, and the availability of a modest capped professional fee, the court exercised its s36 PAO discretion to require appointment of an independent solicitor to administer the estate, discharge the caveat and dismiss the existing application for grant by the Persons Warning.
11 Jun 2010

LAU MUK ON AND OTHERS v. LAU YAM HEI

Citation

LAU MUK ON AND OTHERS v. LAU YAM HEI
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1746/2006

The court will exercise its power under s.33(3) PAO to remove the current administrator and appoint the two designated persons as substituted co-administrators without revoking the original grant; a vesting order must be made to vest estate property in the substitutes; substitutes need not demonstrate entitlement to a fresh grant under the Non-contentious Probate Rules where the court is satisfied as to their fitness and consent, and supplemental affirmations must be filed before the order is annexed to the grant.
18 May 2010

RE HASAN SUNARJO

Citation

RE HASAN SUNARJO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG8381/2006

The notarial "Inheritance of Right Statement" is not a foreign grant or court order required by Rule 29(a); accordingly the application cannot proceed under Rule 29(a). The court will waive procedural non-compliance for pragmatic reasons but directs the applicant to refile under Rule 29(b) with a confirmation from an Indonesian lawyer on whether a grant is required in Indonesia; the delay is attributable principally to the solicitors' poor conduct rather than the applicant's language or absence, justifying the court's admonition and consideration of depriving solicitors of costs (not enforced…
9 Mar 2010

RE POON LAI YING

Citation

RE POON LAI YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG11487/2009

The application was fundamentally defective for failing to disclose a proper capacity for grant under r.19 NCPR and for failing to show clearance of prior rights as required by r.25(3); given the applicant's concession and undertaking to waive client costs the application was allowed to be withdrawn and no order for costs was made, but the solicitor was formally criticized and warned about supervision and potential costs deprivation for shoddy preparation.
6 Oct 2008

RE YUEN KIU KWAN

Citation

RE YUEN KIU KWAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG4920/2008

Having considered additional material not before the Deputy Registrar (estate value, practical difficulty and irrecoverable premium, and the offer of an undertaking), the court exercised its discretion under section 46 read with Rule 38 to set aside the Deputy Registrar's requirement for a surety and accepted the applicant's undertaking to pay S$100,000 into court as sufficient security; accordingly no surety guarantee was required.
3 Oct 2006

WONG YUET YU v. CHAN HIU WAH

Citation

WONG YUET YU v. CHAN HIU WAH
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCA1452/2002

Master held that joint administration was not viable due to hostility and lack of trust; the Wife enjoyed a prior right under rule 21 NCPR; the Daughter failed to show any disqualifying factors under section 36 PAO; appointment of two Hong Kong solicitors under the Wife's power of attorney pursuant to rule 30 NCPR does not amount to renunciation; surety was unnecessary given the attorneys and assurances; therefore the Wife was granted leave to withdraw the old application and to file a fresh application through the nominated attorneys, and the Daughter's competing summons was dismissed with c…
7 Mar 2006

RE CYNTHIA WAI-MAN FANG

Citation

RE CYNTHIA WAI-MAN FANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAG5519/2005

Although inclusion of an alias in a grant ordinarily requires evidence that assets are held under that name or other sufficient reason under r.7 NCPR, the Court has a discretion under r.5(1) to waive technical non-compliance; on the facts the Court waived requisition nos.5 and 7 and permitted retention of the deceased's HKID name in the grant because the burden of amendment and prejudice to aged parties outweighed the negligible risk of misidentification.
14 Feb 2006

WU MAN SHAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF PROBATE

Citation

WU MAN SHAN v. THE REGISTRAR OF PROBATE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2683/2005

Rule 55 of the English Non-Contentious Probate Rules applies in Hong Kong by virtue of s72(2) PAO; accordingly rectification under s23A WO may be effected by the Registrar within a grant application if one exists, but where no grant application has been filed the proper route is ex-parte MP proceedings before a Master (or Judge as appropriate); a clerical, trivial error which causes no prejudice can be rectified ex-parte and the Registrar need not be joined as respondent.
10 Feb 2003

LAI WAI PANG v. KWOK LI SHUK HAN

Citation

LAI WAI PANG v. KWOK LI SHUK HAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP13/2000

The amendment to plead a conflict or potential conflict was allowed because the issue was implicit in existing pleadings, is material to the court's statutory duty to appoint an administrator under s36, and the balance of fairness and potential prejudice favoured allowing the amendment while permitting the Plaintiff time and opportunity to seek relief if genuine prejudice arose; the non-admission of alleged gifts was allowed as it logically followed the Defendant's ongoing requests for particulars.