Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Probate grant

Legal area

Court

17 Apr 2026

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

Citation

[2026] HKCA 609
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP208/2025

Leave to appeal was refused because the Judge's factual findings — that the litigation was attributable to the conduct of the deceased and the Plaintiff and that there was a reasonable need to investigate the 2019 will — were open to him and justified departing from the usual costs rule; the Judge properly considered pre-action conduct and Plaintiff's stonewalling as relevant to costs; the plaintiff's grounds lacked a reasonable prospect of success and did not show any error of principle or plainly wrong exercise of discretion.
31 Jan 2018

葉崇堅及另一人對葉永清

Citation

[2018] HKCA 46
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV145/2017

The application for security for costs was refused because the applicant did not establish that the appeal was clearly frivolous or an abuse such that security should be ordered; the respondent's assets (a half-share in a property forming part of the deceased's estate) were not shown to be inaccessible or insufficient to satisfy costs so as to constitute special circumstances under Order 59 r10(5); and the applicants had not met the higher threshold equivalent to a strike-out standard for the appeal.
20 Oct 2017

YUNG SIU CHEE MARGARET AND OTHERS v. CHOY CHING WA FIONNE AND OTHERS

Citation

YUNG SIU CHEE MARGARET AND OTHERS v. CHOY CHING WA FIONNE AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1682/2016

The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidential basis or reasonable breakdowns for the estimated reserve of HK$125,000,000; exercising the court's discretion and taking a broad view of available materials, a reserve of HK$50,000,000 is sufficient to meet potential costs and liabilities and an interim distribution of HK$88,000,000 should be made to the beneficiaries.
25 Oct 2010

WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE v. LIU CHAN AND LAM AND ANOTHER

Citation

WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE v. LIU CHAN AND LAM AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA10/2010

The statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action because the plaintiff failed to demonstrate any right in this action that could prevent the executrix from issuing notices to quit (the executrix had power to do so even before probate) and the 1st defendant as solicitor cannot be restrained for acting on behalf of the executrix; accordingly the strike out and dismissal were upheld.

Hong Kong Case Law

CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

葉崇堅及另一人 對 葉永清

YUNG SIU CHEE MARGARET AND OTHERS v. CHOY CHING WA FIONNE AND OTHERS

WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE v. LIU CHAN AND LAM AND ANOTHER

葉崇堅及另一人對葉永清