Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Revocation of wills

Legal area

Court

20 May 2025

MAO WEIMIN v. MAO WEIGUO (in the capacity as the Administrator of the estate of the Deceased) AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2107
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP861/2023

The 2011 instrument did not revoke the 2010 will because it was consistent with and did not alter the 2010 will's dispositions; the 2019 LA and 2023 LA were obtained with material non-disclosure and are liable to be revoked; however Min failed to adduce evidence to prove due execution of the 2010 will so probate was not granted to him at this stage; court granted declarations, ordered inventories/accounts and granted liberty for Min to apply for probate.
18 Mar 2022

LEUNG SZE SUM CINDY AND ANOTHER v. AU LAP YAN AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 793
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP7/2017

The copy of the will showing a full attestation clause and signatures of the testator and two attesting witnesses engaged a strong presumption of due execution which was not rebutted; the presumption of revocation arising from the original being missing was rebutted on the balance of probabilities and, alternatively, a counter-presumption applied because medical evidence established the deceased lacked testamentary capacity from 2009 until death, so the will was not revoked. Therefore the will is proved and pronounced in solemn form of law based on the copy.
14 Dec 2020

LAM WAI LIK ERIC AND OTHERS v. TAM SUET MUI

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 3047
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP5/2015

Court held that the 1999 Will, although accepted as having been executed by the deceased, was invalid because the deceased lacked testamentary capacity as at 13 August 1999; the 2005 Will was invalid because the deceased lacked testamentary capacity and there was insufficient evidence of knowledge and approval (suspicious circumstances as to source of instructions); accordingly the 1987 Will was pronounced valid and the defendant's counterclaim was dismissed.
15 Sept 2020

CHEN YUE JIA JAMES v. CHEN MARIA (also known as MARIA CHEN FANG and MARIA FANG)

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2410
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP15/2013

On the balance of probabilities the court found that the 1992 will was valid (properly prepared, explained and executed) and that the 1999 and 2001 wills were executed by a testator with sufficient testamentary capacity; non-compliance with the golden rule by the attesting solicitor (John Ku) did not invalidate the Last 3 Wills given the totality of factual evidence. The 2004 will was treated with caution because of deterioration and poorer MMSE results and was not propounded. The 2001 Will was propounded as the last valid will; alternatively 1999 or 1992 would be propounded if necessary.
4 Dec 2019

TIMOTHY HERMAN ALBERTS v. GERARDUS EVERARDUS LOMAN AND OTHERS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2900
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP35/2015

Court found the professionally prepared 2008 will and 2012 codicil had been revoked by the testator's crossing out and confirmatory signatures; the subsequent homemade scripts (including the Alleged 2014 Script) were created in circumstances that were suspicious, contained material errors and inconsistencies and did not satisfy s.5(1) nor could they be admitted under s.5(2); therefore there was no valid will and the estate falls to intestacy with the plaintiff, as sole lawful child, entitled to letters of administration.
10 Mar 2017

YAU SAU CHUN v. YAU TIM WO

Citation

YAU SAU CHUN v. YAU TIM WO
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2016

The uncontradicted, clear evidence from the solicitor that the 2003 will was prepared in accordance with the deceased's instructions, interpreted to him in Punti and executed by him, created a strong presumption of knowledge and approval which the defendant failed to rebut with the clearest evidence; accordingly summary judgment was entered for the plaintiff and the defendant's counterclaim was struck out.
31 Jan 2012

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING

Citation

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP9/2005

On the evidence as a whole the plaintiffs failed to raise a sustainable evidential issue and in any event the preponderance of factual and medical evidence established that Mr Chiu had testamentary capacity when instructions were given and when he executed the 2003 will; the 2003 will was explained to and approved by him; the 1997 will was revoked and destroyed; accordingly the 2003 will is propounded in solemn form and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

MAO WEIMIN v. MAO WEIGUO (in the capacity as the Administrator of the estate of the Deceased) AND OTHERS

LEUNG SZE SUM CINDY AND ANOTHER v. AU LAP YAN AND ANOTHER

LAM WAI LIK ERIC AND OTHERS v. TAM SUET MUI

CHEN YUE JIA JAMES v. CHEN MARIA (also known as MARIA CHEN FANG and MARIA FANG)

TIMOTHY HERMAN ALBERTS v. GERARDUS EVERARDUS LOMAN AND OTHERS

YAU SAU CHUN v. YAU TIM WO

CHIU MAN FU AND OTHERS v. CHIU CHUNG KWAN YING