Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revocation of grant

Legal area

Court

13 Mar 2026

NG SAU LIN AND ANOTHER v. AN KI, in her personal capacity and as the sole administratrix of the estate of SZE WANG CHAK, Deceased

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 825
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1794/2023

Given the Wife's absence, bankruptcy, alleged retention of estate proceeds, failure to account and the need to secure and pursue the estate's significant remaining right of action (medical negligence claim), the court was satisfied under s.33 PAO that removal of the administratrix and appointment of the Son was necessary for the due and effective administration of the estate and protection of beneficiaries' interests.
27 Jan 2025

KWOK YUK KIENG AND OTHERS v. MAN CHUK HEI

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 452
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP24/2023

Because the defendant was divorced from the deceased prior to his death she was not a spouse for the purposes of the Intestates' Estates Ordinance and therefore was not entitled to the grant; the grant obtained by the defendant was revoked and costs were awarded to the plaintiffs.
2 Nov 2023

CHEUNG WAI LING VICKI v. CHEUNG OI LING AILEEN (IN HER CAPACITY AS ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI RUBY aka RUBY K. CHEUNG, CHEUNG CHOY CHIU KI, CHEUNG CHOY RUBY CHIU KI, CHEUNG RUBY K, CHEUNG RUBY AND CHEUNG RUBY KAY DECEASED AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2819
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP563/2022

Aileen was removed as administratrix because she repeatedly failed to render a true and perfect inventory and account, breached the court order by withholding documents from PwC, failed to distribute sums due to a beneficiary, and demonstrated lack of interest in administering a substantial estate; replacement by the nominated independent professionals (PwC partners So and Chin) and revocation of the existing grant were required for due and proper administration; costs of the proceedings awarded personally against Aileen while costs of the PwC report borne by the estate.
22 Sept 2023

FUNG YUEN LUN v. FUNG CHUI YING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2324
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP1/2020

Under s33 the court removed the defendant as executrix because her prolonged inactivity, dilatory conduct, failure to render accounts and unexplained nearly ten year delay in applying for probate demonstrated a dereliction of duty that endangered proper administration and warranted replacement in the welfare interests of the beneficiaries; the plaintiff was appointed as replacement and ordered vested with estate property with ancillary orders for inventory, account and costs.
3 Mar 2023

TO KIT TANG v. LIU BOYU

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 649
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP730/2020

Service to the defendant at the Discovery Bay address was ineffectual given evidence defendant was in Mainland China and correspondence was returned or refused; accordingly the court refused to grant the substantive orders sought and adjourned the re-amended originating summons sine die with liberty to restore once proper service is effected, reserving costs. Plaintiff must apply for leave to serve out of jurisdiction on the Mainland address and for substituted service in Hong Kong where appropriate.
28 Nov 2022

謝悅心對謝子寅

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3491
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP646/2021

On the balance of probabilities the court accepted the applicant's evidence and rejected the defendant's inconsistent and partly newly advanced account; the applicant proved the deceased had testamentary capacity and understood the will when it was executed on 24 January 2018, so the 2018 will is valid and the defendant's grant (HCAG 16220/2019) was wrongly obtained and must be revoked.
28 Apr 2022

吳彩琼對吳慶年

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 1175
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP21/2018

Court found the defendant not a credible or reliable witness, rejected key supporting affidavits and documentary assertions as unproved or likely forged, and concluded the defendant failed to prove any lawful customary adoption (which must be public and family-acknowledged). Consequently the grant of letters of administration obtained by the defendant was revoked and his counterclaim dismissed.
23 Mar 2021

TSANG CHOI NGUN (suing as one of the executors and trustees of the estate of WONG WAI FONG, deceased) v. WONG WAN CHI ANITA

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP223/2020

The grant of probate was revoked and the Defendant removed as executrix because the Defendant obstructed administration, claimed to have destroyed the grant, refused to cooperate and became unresponsive, creating a supervening defect that justified revocation rather than mere removal; a fresh grant to the Plaintiff as sole executrix was ordered to avoid further delay, and costs were awarded to the Plaintiff on an indemnity basis in the sum of HKD 150,000, with the Plaintiff's own costs to be paid from the estate.
5 Aug 2020

CHIK KWONG SUN AND ANOTHER v. PAU LAN YING (in her own capacity and in the capacity as the sole Administratrix of the estate of CHIK SIU, deceased)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1612/2018

Defendant failed to discharge the statutory and common law duties of a personal representative by excluding beneficiaries from her grant application, converting estate assets for her own use, failing to provide proper accounts or documentary support and failing to cooperate with court directions; consequently the grant was revoked and a new grant issued to the 2nd plaintiff under s.33 PAO to ensure due administration, and a vesting order under s.67 PAO was made to restore the property to the estate for sale and distribution; defendant was ordered to render a proper account within specified ti…
4 Apr 2019

JEN KIT JOSEPHINE, the Administratrix of the Estate of JEN FRANK CHIA HSIANG, deceased v. CHAN SAU WAI SHIRLEY

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA346/2014

The court expressed serious doubt that consolidation was appropriate or expedient given the distinct issues, parallel foreign proceedings and procedural irregularities alleged; the judge declined to treat consolidation as plainly suitable without further consideration and reserved substantive determination pending fuller resolution of service and grant validity issues.