Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Estate administration

Legal area

Court

11 Jul 2025

黎秀琼對醫院管理局高拔陞醫生(行政總裁)及其他人 [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2385
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1198/2025

Permission to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to articulate any arguable grounds, relied on unsubstantiated serious allegations, many of the claimed remedies were non-justiciable or appropriate for other fora, and there was no basis to restrain the hospital or compel the respondents as sought; consequentially no relief granted and no order as to costs.
10 Apr 2025

WONG LAM YUK v. HANG SENG BANK, LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1492
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP237/2025

Norwich Pharmacal relief was granted because the applicant established a prima facie case that the administrator had concealed or transferred estate assets, the disclosure sought was necessary and appropriately limited to documents in the banks' possession/power/custody, and the court granted leave to use disclosed documents against the administrator despite the implied undertaking.
18 Dec 2024

CHOW YAT MING（周一明）and CHOW YUK LAN（周玉蘭）, the administrator and administratrix of the estate of WONG TAI TAI（黃帶娣）, deceased 對 CHOW YEE（周義）及另一人

Citation

[2024] HKDC 2097
Court

District Court
Case number

DCMP3516/2022

The court found the first defendant failed to prove the alleged oral assurance with sufficient clarity or reliable corroboration, his witnesses lacked credibility and his evidence did not establish detrimental reliance; therefore no common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel arose and the administrators were entitled to recover vacant possession.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV343/2022

The Court dismissed all appeals and permission applications because the appellant's grounds merely repeated arguments already considered and rejected by lower judges, no legal error in the lower courts' rulings was demonstrated, the transfer was legally effective under probate and trustee statutes, appeals against costs orders were procedurally barred without permission, and there was no basis to disturb the discretionary assessment of costs; accordingly all appeals were dismissed and the appellant ordered to pay assessed costs of HKD110,000.
29 Nov 2024

SOURCE VIEW DEVELOPMENT LTD 對 CAFE HAPPY POST LTD及另三人

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1112
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV81/2023

All of the appellant's grounds were previously considered and rejected by the trial judges; the appellant failed to show any legal error in those decisions; the sellers had statutory authority as administrators to effect the sale and transfer; appeals against costs orders required permission which was not obtained; the applications were repetitive and constituted abuse of process; accordingly all appeals and permission applications were dismissed and costs awarded to Source View.
7 Dec 2023

YUEN LING HOI v. YUEN KWAI CHUN, the Executrix of the estate of WONG LAI CHING, deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3182
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP95/2022

The court held that the earlier Order had already disposed of costs for the relief identified in paragraphs 8(1) and 8(2) and that the remaining issue was the Outstanding Costs relating to the Default Relief, which the court directed should be determined on paper.
1 Dec 2023

SHERMAN NGAI WING LEE v. LEE HOI WING MICHAEL AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 3056
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2905/2017

The court held the Seagroatt Judgment was not a judgment in rem but nonetheless bound all six sons as privies because they were identified beneficiaries with a direct vested interest; as a result the sons held indefeasible vested interests in the two properties and the father and Sherman could not validly dispose of or vary those interests between themselves. Consequently neither the handwritten Settlement Agreement nor the later Deed of Settlement could lawfully alter those beneficiaries' interests and the plaintiff's claim failed; the counterclaim succeeded to the extent of requiring transf…
19 Sept 2023

WONG TUNG WAI v. WONG TUNG PO

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2356
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP3/2017

The judge held that the case did not fall within the first exception because the deceased's conduct was not the sole or dominant cause of litigation; however, objective circumstances reasonably warranted investigation of the 2nd Will, so a portion of costs (15%) is attributable to necessary investigation. The Plaintiff's litigation was hostile and exceeded mere investigation, therefore the general rule applies to the remainder; accordingly the Plaintiff must pay 85% of the Defendant's costs.
6 Sept 2023

IP WOON SHUN v. GOOD CHINA HOLDINGS LTD AND OTHERS

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2306
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1082/2023

Section 570(6) confers standing on the legal personal representative and section 570(2)(b) empowers the court to order meetings where it is impracticable to convene them; accordingly the court properly ordered general meetings to enable the beneficiaries to pass resolutions appointing Clarisse as director and authorised the applicant to convene and constitute quorum for those meetings.
29 Aug 2022

張聘心對黃志恒

Citation

[2022] HKCA 1258
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV65/2020

The appeal is dismissed because the respondent failed to discharge the evidential burden to prove he was the beneficial owner; the trial judge's adverse credibility findings and factual conclusions were supported by the evidence and were not shown to be plainly wrong; the costs order under the Legal Aid Ordinance s17(3) was justified by the respondent's improper conduct and untruthful case.