Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Order 15 rule 6a

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2017

TSANG, HOI WAH AVA, deceased AND ANOTHER v. BANCKA LTD

Citation

TSANG, HOI WAH AVA, deceased AND ANOTHER v. BANCKA LTD
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1427/2017

The court was satisfied it was probable that Letters of Administration would be obtained and that the 2nd applicant could be appointed to represent the deceased's estate under O.15 r.6A; s570(2)(b) is engaged where it is probable the applicant will become a member, therefore the court could grant orders to convene EGMs and permit appointment of an additional director pending formal probate/administration.
11 Jan 2017

LIU YUN HOP AND LIU KWAN KIT SUING AS LIU SUI HING TSO v. LIU TSIK HING

Citation

LIU YUN HOP AND LIU KWAN KIT SUING AS LIU SUI HING TSO v. LIU TSIK HING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1479/2016

The ex parte summons was dismissed: the court declined to make a declaration of death or presumed death and declined to make a representation order under Order 15 r6A because (a) it was not appropriate to grant the declaratory relief in the ex parte context and declarations are statements of legal right not mere factual findings, and (b) the applicant failed to show the representation order was necessary or that all reasonable steps had been taken to trace beneficiaries, so the court would not exercise its discretion to appoint a representative.
30 Nov 2006

TANG KIN MAN v. KWOK YU PING AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG KIN MAN v. KWOK YU PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCPI378/2005

The court exercised its discretion under Order 3 r.5 to extend the time for the plaintiff to apply under Order 15 r.6A(4), appointed the administrators as plaintiff to continue the action, allowed amendment of the 1st Defendant's name, and declined to make an order striking out because the plaintiff's subsequent applications and this decision overtook the strike out application; the extension was justified by lack of prejudice to defendants and delay attributable to plaintiffs' solicitors' mistake.
30 Jan 2004

WAH YING CHEONG CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK PING AND OTHERS

Citation

WAH YING CHEONG CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3059/1997

The court held Paragraph 2 of the Rogers J order of 19 November 1997 unambiguously named the beneficiaries as the estates of the three deceased persons; Paragraph 3(1) does not authorize the Plaintiff to act as personal representative or to distribute proceeds to male descendants; the Plaintiff must distribute only to properly appointed personal representatives of the respective estates; accordingly the Plaintiff's summons of 13 August 1999 seeking to act as personal representative and effect distribution was dismissed.
27 Aug 2003

WAH YING CHEONG CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK PING AND OTHERS

Citation

WAH YING CHEONG CO LTD v. CHAN KWOK PING AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3059/1997

The court refused to order the trustee (the plaintiff) to pay the trust funds into court against the trustee's wishes on the facts; it held that fundamental legal issues—whether the named estates or individual descendants are the beneficiaries and whether the plaintiff can act as personal representative without probate—must be determined first at a substantive hearing; accordingly the court declined to grant the distribution directions sought at this interlocutory stage and directed parties to prepare for a hearing to resolve those issues, with costs reserved.
5 Oct 1999

Chung Yi Yuen v. Lau Koon Shing and Another

Citation

Chung Yi Yuen v. Lau Koon Shing and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV46/1999

The Court of Appeal concluded that the question whether an intended administrator may institute and pursue proceedings in his own name prior to obtaining letters of administration and the correct interpretation of Order 15 rule 6A vis-à-vis section 55A is a question of great general or public importance; accordingly the court made an order under section 22(1)(b) referring the question to the Court of Final Appeal and accepted the plaintiff's undertaking to notify defendants within 24 hours of any grant of representation.
14 Nov 1995

MICHAEL JOSEPH NETHERBY v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DEREK GEOFFREY HININGS, deceased

Citation

MICHAEL JOSEPH NETHERBY v. THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVE OF DEREK GEOFFREY HININGS, deceased
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2418/1993

Plaintiff failed to demonstrate any 'good reason' for not obtaining an Order 15 appointment and for failing to serve the writ within the periods of validity; the plaintiff's solicitors failed to address the Master's reasonable queries and to take available steps to obtain an appointment; estoppel cannot validate a nullity; accordingly no extension of the writ is granted and the appeal is dismissed.
18 Mar 1982

DENVIEW ESTATES LTD v. CHAN KWONG TSUN AND OTHERS

Citation

DENVIEW ESTATES LTD v. CHAN KWONG TSUN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV23/1982

O.15 r.6A is not limited to running-down actions; it applies wherever an action would have lain against a person since deceased and the cause of action has survived, and therefore the action was properly brought against the deceased's estate and the sole executrix should be appointed to represent the estate for the purposes of the proceedings.