16 Nov 2023
The court accepted the applicant's evidence that the missing person was likely dead after a prolonged unexplained absence, but concluded it lacked jurisdiction to grant a unilateral declaration of death because there was no adversarial dispute or other party with a present legal interest before the court; accordingly the originating summons issued by the applicant was set aside.
18 Mar 2021
The application is refused because the court will not make a declaration of presumed death on a one-sided application absent an adversarial dispute or proper jurisdictional basis; the applicant must instead pursue non-contentious probate procedures (Rule 52) to deal with estate and related matters.
5 Mar 2021
A court will not, on a unilateral originating summons, declare a missing person to be legally dead because there is no adversarial dispute and the court lacks jurisdiction to decide hypothetical matters; the correct procedure is to apply under r.52 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules to the Judicial Registrar and, if necessary, obtain letters of administration to deal with insurance and tenancy issues.
22 Aug 2018
On the evidence of disappearance in dangerous circumstances, exhaustive searches and inquiries, absence of personal activity and no registry record, the court was satisfied the middle brother could be presumed dead and granted the applicant authority to administer the estate.
11 Jan 2018
The appeal was dismissed because the appellant failed to provide satisfactory evidence that the defendant was dead or to show a sufficient interest in the defendant's estate; inferences from the age of a historic lease were insufficient and reasonable enquiries required to establish death and succession were not made.
11 Jan 2017
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.
9 Mar 2006
The court declared Lo presumed dead as of 28 November 1998 because the applicant proved on the balance of probabilities that Lo had been missing since that date despite extensive rescue efforts, inquiries and publicity and there was no communication or trace thereafter.
22 May 2000
On the evidence of long, exclusive, uninterrupted possession and use since the father's death, with no payment of rent to anyone and no challenge by others, the court was satisfied the plaintiff had acquired adverse possession and thus a possessory title to the specified lots under ss.7(2) and 17 of the Limitation Ordinance; accordingly the registered title of the deceased defendants was extinguished and declarations in terms of the Originating Summons were made.
29 Apr 1998
The court exercised its discretion to order the determination of the death issue as a preliminary matter because deciding it first would save time and costs and could terminate the action if the plaintiff failed; the court also protected confidentiality and safety interests by granting non-inspection and endorsement orders for the sealed testamentary envelopes.
6 Jan 1998
Both procedural routes were legally available; withdrawal of the ex parte death application and commencement of full inter partes proceedings was not an abuse of process, there was no prejudice to the defendant warranting dismissal, the plaintiff's evidence was not shown to be bound to fail, and the court would not exercise its discretion under O.76(1) to dispense with the affidavit of testamentary script; accordingly the defendant's strike out application was dismissed and an Unless Order was granted for filing the affidavit and defence.