25 Sept 2024
Where a trustee died without vesting the legal title and there is no personal representative, the court has jurisdiction under s.45(e) Trustee Ordinance to vest the land in the beneficiary; accordingly the court ordered the legal and beneficial interest in Lot No.308 to vest in the applicant and removed the deceased trustee from the register.
22 Aug 2024
Applicant established deceased trustee’s legal title, his own beneficial entitlement and assignment, the existence of the trust, and the absence of any personal representative; those facts constituted clear evidence justifying an ex‑parte final vesting order under s45(e), therefore the court removed the deceased as trustee and vested the Properties in the applicant absolutely.
12 May 2023
Joinder refused because Harbour Front's interest was a mere commercial interest divorced from the subject matter of the Removal Summons (which concerns the Official Receiver's fitness as trustee); neither the Necessity Limb nor the Just and Convenient Limb of Order 15 r.6(2)(b) was satisfied and it was not necessary to join Harbour Front to effectually determine the Removal Summons.
12 May 2023
Healthy Wharf lacks a direct legal interest in the subject matter (the contractual disputes under the Settlement Agreement) and as a creditor cannot supplant the Official Receiver in administering the estate; the OR is the proper party to enforce the Settlement Agreement and any grievance lies to relief under the Bankruptcy Ordinance (eg s83) rather than joinder; permitting joinder would add an unnecessary opponent, cause delay and prejudice the Plaintiff and creditors, therefore joinder is refused.
15 Dec 2022
Although no actual conflict or proven misconduct by the trustee was established, the objective circumstance of the trustee founder's business and personal ties to beneficiary-directors created a real risk of conflict and, coupled with the Applicant's articulated distrust and the undertaking to indemnify transfer and costs, continuation of the respondent would be likely to impede proper administration; accordingly it was expedient under s42 TO to discharge the respondent and appoint the proposed replacement (Mr Frank Yuen) who is fit and proper.
15 Jan 2021
Documentary evidence established an express trust in favour of the applicants and the trustee died with no personal representative; accordingly the court exercised its discretion under section 45(e) to make a vesting order vesting the properties in the applicants as tenants-in-common in equal shares, and the vesting order effected the termination of the trust without need to remove the trustee.
11 Jan 2021
Applicant's summons to remove Chang Wing Dee as administrator was dismissed because the court found no sustainable conflict, incompetence or incurable hostility; the real cause of delay and dispute was John Chang's persistent refusal to produce supporting documents and suspicious accounting for Canadian properties which justified intervention. The Mediation Agreement was construed to include Canadian assets and to intend WD's appointment as administrator for those assets. John Chang was removed as trustee of the Canadian trust for persistent breach of fiduciary duty, failure to render proper…
17 Nov 2020
Balancing the relevant factors the court was not satisfied the plaintiff had demonstrated a high probability of success nor that an order for security would stifle the claim; the trustee had given adequate offers of disclosure and had incurred substantial costs; accordingly security for costs was justified and the plaintiff was ordered to provide security of HK$800,000 and to pay the assessed costs for the security application totalling HK$640,000, failing which the proceedings would be stayed.
11 Dec 2019
Application dismissed because applicant failed to show prima facie relevance of the documents to the pleaded grounds for removal; the summons amounted to a fishing expedition and there was no evidence funds of David Ho were applied to LSF's bankruptcy after Ho's adjudication, so discovery was not justified; standing issue unnecessary to decide given dismissal on merits.
2 Aug 2019
The court held that rule 158 was not the appropriate vehicle to decide a general disciplinary question of fitness to act as an insolvency officer; the OR's concerns arising from Mr Tang's contempt, failure to disclose and alleged stubbornness did not establish dishonesty or sufficient grounds to invalidate the creditors' appointment or to remove him by way of directions under r158; non-disclosure was characterised as negligence not dishonesty and the OR could not by administrative measures re‑punish or debar him outside disciplinary procedures, accordingly the application was dismissed.