10 May 2023
On the facts found by the trial judge (accepted by this Court) the deceased intended the Tai Tam Road property to be treated as an ancestral home passed down the male line and the transfer was not an advancement for the purposes of s 5(1)(c); accordingly the hotchpot did not apply and the appeal is dismissed.
13 Apr 2022
On the balance of probabilities the transfer of the Tai Tam Road Property was not an advancement; alternatively, if it were an advancement the deceased manifested a contrary intention to treat the property as an ancestral home outside the hotchpot; there was insufficient evidence of incapacity or undue influence and no basis to remove the administrator, therefore the Plaintiff's application is dismissed.
18 Apr 2013
The Court refused to grant leave to appeal out of time because the appeal was not reasonably arguable: the plaintiff did not present new arguments nor identify errors in the judgment. Consequently, no extension of time was warranted and it was unnecessary to decide the summons for security for costs. Costs were awarded against the plaintiff as specified.