Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal of administrators

Legal area

Court

22 Feb 2023

LAM KA WAI REBECCA AND ANOTHER v. LAM JENNY, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAM KAM WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 530
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1014/2021

The defendants' conduct in opposing appointment of a professional administrator was unsupported by adequate evidence, was obstructive, and constituted hostile litigation within the class identified in Re Estate of Leung Lit; accordingly the unsuccessful defendants must pay costs and the conduct justified an award on an indemnity basis.
5 Dec 2022

LAM KA WAI REBECCA AND ANOTHER v. LAM JENNY, THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF LAM KAM WAI AND OTHERS

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3653
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1014/2021

There were reasonable grounds for forensic investigation into the Subject Assets (the GTE Sum and the Rainbow Rich loan) given conflicting explanations, incomplete documentary support and accounting entries; forensic accounting expertise was required; accordingly the court removed the existing administrators and appointed Derek Lai and Guy Norman of Deloitte (as professional administrators) to investigate and administer the estate, with costs reserved.
9 Sept 2022

王賢琨對王曙及另一人

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 2785
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP6/2019

Because the relationships between the parties had irretrievably broken down, causing the estate administration to be at a standstill for over a decade and making it impossible or impracticable for any of the involved family members to act effectively and impartially, the court removed the existing joint administrators and ordered the process to select an independent professional solicitor to be the new administrator to ensure proper and effective administration of the estate.
8 Mar 2017

MAK MEI KI ANGELA v. CHAN WAI FONG AND ANOTHER

Citation

MAK MEI KI ANGELA v. CHAN WAI FONG AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1894/2016

The administrators had, for ten years after grant, failed to fully administer the estate, failed to furnish accounts and failed to participate in proceedings; this conduct endangered due and proper administration and beneficiaries' interests, and there was a real risk of continued non-cooperation, therefore the grant was revoked, the administrators removed, accounts ordered, and a professional administrator appointed to secure proper administration; costs were awarded personally on an indemnity basis.
4 Feb 2010

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER

Citation

HO CHI MEI v. HO CHE YING AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1002/2008

Having considered the nature of the dispute, parties' conduct, the settlement terms and practical effect on a modest estate, the court held that costs of both parties should be borne by the estate and, to avoid taxation, fixed the Plaintiff's costs at $300,000 and the Defendants' costs at $91,000 pursuant to Order 62 Rule 9(4)(b); no personal costs order was made against the Defendants.
19 May 2005

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV17/2004

The indemnity costs order made on 31 December 2003 was set aside because the proceedings did not exhibit the special or unusual features required to justify indemnity costs; costs of the Recusal Application were ordered to be paid by the defendant to the Joint Administrators on a party-and-party basis; the Joint Administrators' own costs are to be taxed on a trustee basis and paid out of the estate; no personal costs order was made against the Joint Administrators; and no order as to costs was made for the variation application and Recusal Costs Appeal except that the Joint Administrators' ow…
11 Jan 2005

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/1999

The Administrators' application was a discrete interlocutory matter and, having succeeded, the Administrators and plaintiff were entitled to costs; an indemnity costs order in favour of the Administrators was appropriate given the defendant's conduct and the need to protect the estate; the Administrators' own costs are payable from the estate on trustee basis.
15 Dec 2004

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV17/2004

The court exercised its discretion to make no order as to costs because, on balance, the Joint Administrators had contributed to the wasted costs by refusing to accommodate a sensible re-ordering of the hearings to suit counsel availability and the Defendant had failed to make a formal application to the registrar to advance the Adjournment/Capacity Appeal; therefore neither party was entitled to costs of the adjournment.
8 Sept 2004

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/1999

The rescusal application was misconceived and unnecessary within the context of estate administration; the Administrators acted reasonably in opposing it; awarding costs on a party-and-party basis would unfairly burden the Estate with any shortfall; accordingly an indemnity costs order for the Administrators and payment of their unrecovered costs out of the Estate on a trustee basis is appropriate, and reserving those costs to the removal application is inappropriate; the application to vary the costs order nisi is refused and the order made absolute.
20 Aug 2004

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG

Citation

WANG DIN SHIN v. NINA KUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/1999

Adjourn the defendant's removal application until final determination of the probate proceedings and appeals because proceeding now would prejudice the due administration of the estate, waste estate resources and likely be moot; the defendant may only seek removal in her capacity as a beneficiary or potential beneficiary and not to protect separate shareholder interests which are adverse to the estate; therefore paragraphs 2–5 directions unnecessary and adjournment with costs ordered.