Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Ancestral worship trust

Legal area

Court

31 May 2017

DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN

Citation

DR LAU YUE CHIU v. LAU KIN SHUN FREEMAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1176/2016

Defendant was entitled to the grant de bonis non as personal representative of the 4th son under rule 19 of the NCPR because the Will/Codicil bequeathed the residuary estate to the three named sons absolutely and the DFA was a post-death family arrangement that did not make the plaintiff an ultimate residuary beneficiary; accordingly plaintiff's claim had no reasonable prospect and was struck out.
4 Mar 2015

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG

Citation

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2013

On an overall assessment of the parties' successes and failures the court maintained its prior decision that the plaintiffs are entitled to one half of the costs of the appeal and below and dismissed the defendant's application to vary the costs order.
28 Nov 2014

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG

Citation

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV177/2013

The Court held the plaintiffs had not established a valid ancestral worship trust as required by precedent and formalities; the judge below erred in finding adverse possession because the defendant failed to prove the necessary physical possession and intention to dispossess co-owners; however, on the proper construction of the 1939 Division the defendant (and predecessor) had been appointed bailiff/collector of rents and therefore must render an account. The appeal was allowed to the extent of ordering an account and inquiry; injunctive relief was not made.
25 Oct 2013

WONG TAT SHUN v. TANG SHIU MAN

Citation

WONG TAT SHUN v. TANG SHIU MAN
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP790/2012

The registered Division of Property dated 24 April 1912, having been entered in the Land Registry, takes priority under LRO ss3 and 4 and, together with the expiry of limitation, establishes that the respondent has shown a good title to Mong Tseng Wai Lot No 136 in DD129 despite absence of an earlier registered transfer from the government lessee.
23 Jul 2013

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG

Citation

TANG TAK SUM AND ANOTHER v. TANG KAI FONG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2089/2009

No ancestral worship trust was created by the 1939 Division of Family; even if one had been created it was not effectuated in law and in any event the 1976 registration of the Heads of the 4 fongs as tenants-in-common vested the Deceased's interest in them and operated to discharge any customary conditions; the parties and their predecessors acted on a common assumption that the Land was not subject to a trust and Plaintiffs are estopped from asserting inconsistent rights; the Defendant proved presumed ouster by long uninterrupted receipt and use of rents and demonstrated the requisite intent…
25 Jan 2008

TANG CHE TAI AND OTHERS v. TANG ON KWAI AND OTHERS

Citation

TANG CHE TAI AND OTHERS v. TANG ON KWAI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV137/2007

The court dismissed the defendants' appeal and held the 1982 decision was not binding on the membership of the Tong: it was not enforceable in perpetuity under Chinese law and custom (and was found to have been procured by duress on the facts), distributions of assets devoted to ancestral worship cannot be made absent unanimous consent of adult members (or conforming representation rules), and the 2002 pai-ji distribution was unlawful; accordingly an injunction restraining further distributions was granted while permitting limited customary payments.
27 Mar 2000

LAU LEUNG CHAU AND OTHERS v. LAU YUK KUI AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU LEUNG CHAU AND OTHERS v. LAU YUK KUI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV15/1999

The DFA is valid because no ancestral worship trust existed: under Chinese law and custom such trusts require inter vivos creation by positive steps (registration or establishment of a tso/tong) and cannot be constituted solely by a testamentary codicil; Hong Kong law will not manufacture a hybrid form of the institution contrary to how Chinese law/custom operates; accordingly the challenge to the DFA for purported breach of an ancestral worship trust fails.
29 Jan 1999

LAU LEUNG CHAU v. LAU LEUNG SEUNG AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU LEUNG CHAU v. LAU LEUNG SEUNG AND OTHERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV33/1998

By a majority the Court held that the Codicil did not establish an Ancestral Worship Trust under the applicable Chinese law and custom on the facts and expert evidence; therefore the statutory mechanism in s.15 NTO for registered managers did not arise and the 1946 Deed of Family Arrangement stood; the trial judge's finding that no AWT existed was not wrong and the appeals were dismissed.
7 Jan 1998

LAU YUE KUI v. LAU LEUNG CHAU AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU YUE KUI v. LAU LEUNG CHAU AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3924/1995

The court held the DFA of 20 March 1946 is valid and binding: no ancestral worship trust was shown to have been properly established (no required registration or other positive steps), the DFA was properly carried into effect by distribution, exclusive possession and receipt of rents and benefits over decades, formal defects did not invalidate it under Chinese custom or Hong Kong law, s.15 N.T. Ordinance did not negate the division in these circumstances, and equitable considerations favored maintaining the long‑standing division; accordingly the defendants' counterclaim alleging a binding on…
7 Jan 1998

LAU YUE KUI v. LAU YU HI AND OTHERS

Citation

LAU YUE KUI v. LAU YU HI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3209/1996

The court held that no ancestral worship trust had been effectively created in the ancestor's lifetime or on his death, the 1946 Deed of Family Arrangement was valid and had been substantially carried into effect by exclusive possession and enjoyment for decades, s.15 New Territories Ordinance did not invalidate that consensual family division in the circumstances, the alleged 1979 one‑eighth agreement was not proved or sufficiently certain, and therefore the DFA is valid and binding on the parties; consequential orders to be determined at a further hearing.