Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Appointment of committee

Legal area

Court

27 Jun 2025

P v. Q

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3080
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH134/2022

The applicant was appointed as committee with power to investigate because the required inquiries are primarily documentary and procedural, appointment of a professional committee would likely deplete the substantial estate through high hourly professional fees, and the respondent acted unreasonably in disputing LSY's mental capacity and withholding material medical evidence; accordingly the respondent must bear all costs of the mental capacity issue, including the applicant's costs on an indemnity basis, and those costs must not be charged to the MIP's estate.
27 Jul 2021

RE NLS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 2203
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH4/2020

On the balance of probabilities the court found NLS to be a mentally incapacitated person within the meaning of Part II MHO because the court‑observed interview, supported by the independent Court Expert (Dr Chung) and applicant expert (Dr Wong), demonstrated significant impairments (notably failure to recall large gifts/withdrawals, poor insight into legal expenditures and inability to manage complex business/rental decisions) so that NLS cannot manage and administer his property and affairs.
11 Jun 2021

RE FKS

Citation

[2021] HKCFI 1641
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH40/2020

In Part II MHO proceedings the court will generally refuse cross-examination on affidavit where the disputes raised are complex financial matters unsuitable for the Part II forum, and where a decision on the applicant's fitness can properly be reached on the basis of affidavit and documentary evidence; granting cross-examination would be disproportionate, cause delay, increase costs and would not be in the best interests of the alleged mentally incapacitated person.
6 Oct 2020

RE LHHK

Citation

[2020] HKCFI 2552
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH121/2019

Given credible medical evidence of LHHK's incapacity and that a committee must be appointed, the court found PL unsuitable because of concerns about her health and ongoing psychiatric follow-up, lack of demonstrated personal involvement in managing LHHK's affairs, potential conflict of interest arising from wills executed with the carer, and the complexity and value of the estate requiring neutral independent management and investigation. The Official Solicitor, having consented and being neutral, is the appropriate appointee; ancillary cost directions and publication directions follow.
11 Dec 2019

RE LMSP

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2997
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH48/2017

Thomas, as bona fide applicant whose Part II application resulted in the appointment of an independent committee, is entitled to recover reasonable costs from the Estate; Cheung and Tsun are not entitled to recover costs incurred in unreasonably contesting the medical certificates or filing unnecessary affirmation but are entitled to limited costs for reasonable participation and advice on choice of committee and terms of relief; the claimed amounts were excessive and the court fixed recoverable sums (Thomas HK$450,000; Cheung HK$80,000; Tsun HK$80,000) to be paid from the Estate.
2 Dec 2019

RE TBS

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2919
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH51/2019

The Court has jurisdiction to make interim residential, care and access arrangements for a mentally incapacitated person pending appointment of a guardian by invoking its inherent protective jurisdiction to cover matters not squarely within s10A; s10A applies to property and affairs and may cover residential and financial provision but does not by itself encompass all care/access arrangements; the 2nd Interim Arrangements ordered were in Mother’s best interests and do not fetter the Guardianship Board.
3 Jan 2019

RE AN ALLEGED MENTALLY INCAPACITATED PERSON ECA

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 49
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH26/2015

The court must follow the established two-stage Part II procedure set out in the authorities and PD 30.1; s7's use of 'may' does not permit dispensing with the inquiry or statutory medical certificate requirements absent special circumstances, which were not shown; therefore the Part II application was refused until PD 30.1 Procedures are complied with.
30 Sept 2016

CKKK v. CKB

Citation

CKKK v. CKB
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV162/2015

The Court accepted the detailed expert psychiatric reports (Dr John Wong and Dr CK Wong) that MCP is suffering from severe dementia and thereby incapable under s7 MHO; procedural irregularities (use of ex parte originating summons and initial absence of two medical certificates) were excused on evidence and PD30.1; the intervener's evidence was unreliable due to conflict of interest (interpreter role and beneficiaries under later wills/POA/EPA); accordingly the Judge's appointment of the applicant as Committee was proper and the appeal failed.
13 May 2016

RE SMJ

Citation

RE SMJ
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH30/2014

Because the Applicant unreasonably refused mediation and the Intervener succeeded in securing the return of the MIP's funds, the Applicant must personally bear the Intervener's assessed costs of HKD 150,000; the Applicant is allowed HKD 100,000 of her costs to be paid out of the estate; other routine costs (originating summons, usual supporting documents and two medical certificates and preliminary hearings) are to be paid from the estate.
17 Sept 2012

RE WSY

Citation

RE WSY
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMH78/2011

Where the MIPs' estates are complex and relatives are antagonistic the court should appoint an independent professional committee and not permit Part II applications to be used as a forum for intra-family forensic disputes; evidence in the application need only provide sufficient pointers for a neutral committee to investigate, and costs should be apportioned so that estates do not bear unnecessary inflated legal costs, with specified orders against a party who caused unnecessary hearings.