Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of marriage

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2020

LAI CHI KEUNG v. HO SIU FONG

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 1309
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP21/2019

No satisfactory evidence established a valid marriage between the deceased and the defendant as defined by IEO s.3; the documents relied on by defendant were insufficient and an affirmation by a third party not tested orally was given no weight; plaintiff was proven to be the natural son of the deceased by his evidence, birth certificate, the deceased's visa application and the defendant's earlier acceptance; accordingly plaintiff is entitled to letters of administration.
31 Jul 2019

FUNG YING CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. YIP WOON YUNG

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 1818
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP26/2014

On the balance of probabilities the judge found that the couple contracted a valid Chinese customary marriage in the Mainland in 1921 based on the parties' descriptions of the rites, subsequent cohabitation and births; expert evidence was not necessary in the circumstances; accordingly the defendants' position that the Deceased and Madam Hom Shee were lawfully married was accepted.
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.
4 Apr 2019

CHAN SAU WAI SHIRLEY v. JEN KIT JOSEPHINE, THE ADMINISTRATRIX OF THE ESTATE OF THE DECEASED AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 879
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP106/2017

The court must scrutinise applications for consolidation and substituted service carefully; consent of parties is not by itself decisive if consolidation is not appropriate or expedient; substituted service and the validity of a grant of Letters of Administration are reviewable where there is evidence of material non-disclosure or misconduct potentially affecting the grant.
29 May 2017

WANG ZI HAO also known as WONG CHI HO v. CHIU LUNG HWA LORRAINE

Citation

WANG ZI HAO also known as WONG CHI HO v. CHIU LUNG HWA LORRAINE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP11/2013

The Chinese Divorce Agreement was formally defective and did not dissolve the 1950 marriage; therefore Madam Young remained married to Mr Wang at her death; Madam Young was domiciled in Singapore at death so Singapore intestacy law applied; under that law the beneficiaries are Mr Wang's estate, the plaintiff and the defendant with the plaintiff entitled to the majority; accordingly letters of administration should be granted to the plaintiff (or his lawfully constituted attorney) and declarations made to that effect.
17 Mar 2017

FUNG SING WAI v. CHOW CHIU WAN AND OTHERS

Citation

FUNG SING WAI v. CHOW CHIU WAN AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV245/2015

The Court dismissed the appeal: Madam Chow failed to prove formal validity of the alleged December 1949 marriage (insufficient and unreliable evidence of any celebration meeting the required formalities under the law/custom of the place); even accepting arguments on capacity, the abrogation of the Civil Code and absence of proved formal compliance meant the alleged union could not be recognized for intestacy purposes; accordingly the grant of Letters of Administration to Madam Chow was properly revoked and should remain granted to the plaintiff.
1 Mar 2017

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR

Citation

JORA SISI OMAR v. JORA HARMIDAR OMAR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP19/2011

The court refused to decide the defendant's five preliminary issues because the matters raised were not pure questions of law but involved mixed questions of fact and law (notably the validity of the Islamic marriage, the 1960 and 1979 nominations and the 1978 membership registration) that require trial; no applicable Limitation Ordinance provision established a clear time bar; the plaintiff has locus to challenge the Adoption Order because it affects estate administration; accordingly the summons for preliminary determination and the application for summary judgment on the counterclaim were…
23 Sept 2016

LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KWOK AND ANOTHER

Citation

LILY CHEUNG v. CHEUNG WAI KWOK AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV154/2015

Both summonses were dismissed: the security for costs application was refused because it was inordinately delayed, the applicant failed to give a satisfactory explanation for delay and the appeals were interconnected so the applicant would incur costs regardless; the stay was refused because the appeal did not show overwhelming merits and the respondent had demonstrable assets sufficient to meet the costs so the appeal would not be rendered nugatory.
3 Aug 2016

吳麗菊對警務處及另四人

Citation

吳麗菊對警務處及另四人
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1720/2012

The court accepted the Mainland final judgments and administrative determinations as establishing the ownership and division of the disputed Mainland properties; found the plaintiff's evidence unreliable and insufficient to prove theft or loss of the specific documents and assets alleged; consequently all of the plaintiff's claims against the Fifth Defendants were dismissed for lack of evidence and legal basis; the Fifth Defendants' counterclaim was not pursued and costs were awarded against the plaintiff (80% of defendants' costs).
2 Mar 2016

FUNG YING CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. YIP WOON YUNG

Citation

FUNG YING CHEUNG AND OTHERS v. YIP WOON YUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP26/2014

Paragraphs 11–20 were struck out because, although the 2003 contract may be referenced at trial, the pleaded allegations went beyond matters properly in issue in the probate action, risked prejudicing and diverting the trial, and did not and could not establish that the claimants lacked a beneficial interest for priority to a grant; therefore those paragraphs disclose no legitimate defence in this probate proceeding and must be removed.