11 Jun 1999
The substitution of the respondent as beneficiary was validly made and recorded by the insurer in accordance with the policy, the trial judge's concurrent factual finding that the insured signed the change was entitled to deference, and the nomination was not a testamentary disposition requiring Wills Ordinance formalities; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.
17 Sept 1998
The nomination signed by the insured was valid on its face; absent proof of a vitiating factor (fraud, misrepresentation, duress, undue influence, forgery or lack of mental assent) the court will give effect to the signed nomination; the trial judge accepted the agent's evidence of the insured's intention and there was no basis to disturb that finding, so the appeal must be dismissed.
24 Jan 1991
The Court held the deceased retained the sole beneficial interest in the insurance policy proceeds (a resulting trust was presumed where the policy was taken out in the name of another), and therefore the HK$3,000,000 constituted property passing on his death under s5 and s6(1)(a) of the Estate Duty Ordinance and was exigible to estate duty; the lower court's declaration was set aside and the appeal allowed.
23 May 1990
On construction of the travel insurance policy and its endorsement the sister was intended to take the $3,000,000 beneficially; there was no unilateral right in the insured or his estate to intercept or revoke the nomination that would render the proceeds property passing on death for the purposes of s.6(1)(a) and thus within s.5; accordingly no estate duty was leviable on the policy proceeds.