Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Administrator duties

Legal area

Court

20 May 2025

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. KHOO CHUN KIM AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA16/2021

The Administrator must participate in HCA 16 as an Interested Party (subject to funding, indemnity and any Beddoe directions) because the Estate has direct and substantial interests and it would be inappropriate to leave recovery to a beneficiary alone; HCA 1449 and HCA 863 shall not be stayed; the Administrator must file and serve a statement of claim to adopt HCA 1449 or propose consolidated pleadings within six months (three months if no Beddoe application); Mother's deposition is to be taken on specified dates with detailed procedural directions; Try Together summonses are adjourned sine…
20 May 2025

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. BANNER (CHINA) INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2106
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA863/2023

The court held that, subject to proper funding, indemnity and any Beddoe directions, the Administrator must participate in HCA 16 as an Interested Party because the Estate has an interest in the subject assets and it would be wrong to leave recovery entirely to a beneficiary; HCA 1449 and HCA 863 are not stayed; the Administrator must file and serve a statement of claim (or consolidated pleading) within specified time limits; Mother’s deposition is to be taken on specified dates with precise procedural directions; Try Together summonses are adjourned sine die until the Administrator files ple…
30 Mar 2023

NG KIN YUEN, Administrator of the estate of LAM TIM STAN also known as LAM TIM alias STAN LAM TIM, deceased v. LAM SIK YING VICTOR AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 1575
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1924/2020

The court declined to give a neutrality direction for HCA 4713/2001 because that action was dismissed; in contrast, for HCA 894/2011 and HCA 1974/2015 the administrator must actively pursue enforcement of the existing judgment against APH and, if necessary, Victor, because the estate stands to recover substantial assets. Costs ordered against Victor are to be borne by him personally where the proceedings should not have been commenced, while certain costs incurred by Victor in proceedings where he succeeded may be reimbursed by the estate. The court authorised the administrator to engage soli…
29 Jul 2021

XIE WEN YUAN (谢文辕) a minor by HE JUN (何君) his next friend and mother v. ZENG MEI YU (曾美玉), the Administrator of the estate of XIE HUIZHANG (謝會章), deceased

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2226
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP659/2019

The court rejected the proprietary claim to specific estate assets, accepted that the proper basis for relief was a preservation order under O 29 r 2, found a real risk to the minor beneficiary's entitlement given non‑disclosure and past undisclosed disposals, admitted the solicitor's affirmations in part but ignored unsupported assertions, and ordered preservation by requiring the administrator to pay into court a sum reflecting the plaintiff's one‑sixth entitlement in respect of disposed properties and to notify solicitors of future sales.
18 Jun 2021

AU WAI KWONG, Joint Administrator of the Estate of Au Wah, deceased v. AU SOUK YEE MARGARET, Joint Administratrix of the Estate of Au Wah, deceased

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1747
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP900/2019

The Originating Summons is dismissed because the evidence produced is insufficient to establish the Alleged Debt and, in any event, the Estate has a stronger restitutionary claim against Wah Sun Limited for bank loans repaid by the Estate which exceed the Alleged Debt; accordingly the Estate should not be ordered to repay the Alleged Debt and the plaintiff must bear costs personally.
10 Sept 2010

CHOW CHUN TIN v. CHOW SO NGOR

Citation

CHOW CHUN TIN v. CHOW SO NGOR
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1794/2009

The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving it was impossible to meet the payment condition: as administrator she had to disclose estate assets and show beneficiaries/associates could not assist; available evidence showed estate property could be sold or otherwise produce funds and there was no evidence that the defendant's sons or beneficiaries were unable to assist; therefore the conditional leave requiring payment into court remains and the application to remove it is dismissed.
1 Nov 1988

TOMMY KONG TAI YEN v. JOHN HOUNG TAI YEN

Citation

TOMMY KONG TAI YEN v. JOHN HOUNG TAI YEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1602/1988

The plaintiff's application for an order under RSC O.62 r.6(2) directing the deceased's estate to pay the shortfall in costs was refused because the plaintiff had compromised his claim by consenting to a lesser costs order, the estate and other beneficiaries were not represented or put on notice, and the parties were not suing or sued in a representative capacity; therefore the court would not make an order affecting the estate even with the defendant's consent.

Hong Kong Case Law

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. KHOO CHUN KIM AND OTHERS

ANG JIMMY TJUN MIN v. BANNER (CHINA) INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD

NG KIN YUEN, Administrator of the estate of LAM TIM STAN also known as LAM TIM alias STAN LAM TIM, deceased v. LAM SIK YING VICTOR AND OTHERS

XIE WEN YUAN (谢文辕) a minor by HE JUN (何君) his next friend and mother v. ZENG MEI YU (曾美玉), the Administrator of the estate of XIE HUIZHANG (謝會章), deceased

AU WAI KWONG, Joint Administrator of the Estate of Au Wah, deceased v. AU SOUK YEE MARGARET, Joint Administratrix of the Estate of Au Wah, deceased

CHOW CHUN TIN v. CHOW SO NGOR

TOMMY KONG TAI YEN v. JOHN HOUNG TAI YEN