Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Mental capacity

Legal area

Court

4 Aug 2025

YIU YAN CHE by YIU WAI YU his next friend v. YIU CHO YUEN

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3437
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1363/2024

The pleaded facts — deterioration of Father's mental state, trust and confidence reposed in the defendant, transfers of valuable company shares for HK$1, and a HK$3.9m remittance with explanation — were sufficient to raise a prima facie case of undue influence such that it was not a plain and obvious case to strike out; consequently the Master's strike-out orders were set aside and the striking-out summons dismissed, with costs consequences for the defendant for abusing process by insisting on unnecessary evidential grounds.
7 May 2025

LO, LEUNG WING AND ANOTHER v. BANK OF CHINA (HONG KONG) LTD AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2103
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP2824/2024

The court granted the Norwich Pharmacal and s.21 disclosure orders because there was a prima facie case of the deceased's incapacity and of dissipation/transfers by the attorney/beneficiary, a real prospect that the bank records from February 2023 to date would enable tracing and preservation of estate assets, the disclosure sought was specific and not unduly wide, and the banks raised no objection, so the balance of interests favored disclosure.
16 Apr 2025

LEE SZE MAN (sue by CHING KWONG MING her mother and next friend) v. CHEUNG KIN WAH AND OTHERS

Citation

[2025] HKDC 616
Court

District Court
Case number

DCPI648/2018

Leave to appeal refused because the proposed grounds were factual re-statements that did not identify palpable errors or a reasonable prospect of success; stay refused because no arguable appeal was shown and no evidence that the appeal would be rendered nugatory without a stay.
1 Aug 2024

LUI MING LOK (雷明樂) v. NG IM FONG LORETTA (伍艷芳), the executrix of the estate of LUI KWAN CHEUNG (雷均祥), Deceased under the Grant of Probate No. HCAG016896/2015

Citation

[2024] HKCFA 21
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV1/2024

Section 20(2)(c) and (d) of the Matrimonial Causes Ordinance cover all types of mental incapacity vitiating consent and thus such marriages are voidable not void; the common law rule that severe incapacity renders a marriage void has been displaced by the statutory code; section 20 applies irrespective of whether the petitioner is a spouse, so the appellant's challenge fails.
15 Jul 2024

CHAN SAU WAI SHIRLEY v. JEN KIT JOSEPHINE, the administratrix of the estate of the Deceased AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1811
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP25/2019

Court held there was insufficient evidence that the deceased lacked the mental capacity to consent to marry on 2 September 1999; the marriage satisfied formal requirements and is recognised under IEO; no adequate evidence of duress/undue influence; substituted service application by D1 involved non-disclosure of other means of contacting P and therefore the substituted service order should be set aside; consequently the letters of administration granted to D1 are called in and revoked under s33 PAO; D1 is removed as administratrix for conflict/failure to account and an independent professiona…
7 Mar 2024

LAW KAM MUI, by Her Next Friend and Daughter, WONG LAI KIN JULIA v. WONG TIN CHEE TINLY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 717
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA1704/2023

The core question of the mother's mental capacity affects both proceedings and is in her best interests to resolve promptly; therefore the court ordered a jointly conducted psychiatric examination by one expert appointed by each side producing a joint report, with conditional access to medical records if the experts' preliminary view at the joint examination is that she is mentally incapacitated, and imposed procedural safeguards and cost directions to balance interests and hospital protocols.
3 Jan 2024

ABC v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF HONG KONG

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 47
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1215/2023

The Anonymity Order must be continued because, on balancing open justice against the need to protect sensitive information, the risk that necessary evidence concerning the Client's mental capacity and family matters would become public, together with the need to preserve anonymisation made in related Foreign Proceedings and practical difficulties of partial openness, made restriction necessary to ensure justice in this case.
30 Oct 2023

YIP SIU WAH v. CHAN YUEN PING by CHAN SIU CHUEN his guardian ad litem

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2777
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA2642/2016

The plaintiff's sole pleaded case at trial was a resulting trust but the Statement of Claim did not properly plead the material fact that the HK$450,000 came from the plaintiff; the pleaded case instead evidenced express agreement which is inconsistent with a resulting trust; accordingly the resulting trust claim was not open and the plaintiff's action was dismissed. The court also found the defendant's witness statements unreliable due to probable loss of capacity but exclusion or lack of weight to those statements did not alter the dismissal given the pleading defect.
14 Jul 2023

LUI MING LOK v. NG IM FONG LORETTA

Citation

[2023] HKCA 865
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV418/2020

On construction of s.20 MCO in light of legislative history and the adoption of the NMA 1971, lack of mental capacity/unsoundness of mind or mental disorder renders a marriage voidable under s.20(2)(c)‑(d), not void; the old ecclesiastical/common‑law rule that such incapacity made a marriage void was not preserved by s.20(1)(b) and the pleading that the August 2010 marriage was void was correctly struck out.
5 Jan 2023

HO KUENG AND OTHERS v. LAU YUET HING

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 6
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP370/2018

The court accepted the direct and credible testimony of the solicitor witness (Ms Cheng) that Madam Lee understood and executed the assignment; preferred the plaintiffs' expert (Dr Leung) over the defendant's experts; found no reliable evidence of undue influence, non est factum, unconscionability or unilateral mistake; consequently the assignment is valid, plaintiffs entitled to vacant possession and mesne profits, and the defendant's amended counterclaim is dismissed.