Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Statutory will

  • 30 Sept 2025

    RE CVB

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4647
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH11/2022

    The judge found on medical evidence that CVB lacked testamentary capacity (s10B(4)), applied s10A and s10B and the established Hong Kong authorities adopting a substituted judgment approach tempered by best interests, and concluded that a statutory will should be authorised because it was in CVBs best interests to prevent her substantial estate passing to the government and to provide, rationally and proportionately, for the 11th aunt and specified siblings/issues of the 12th uncle; accordingly the court authorised the committee to execute the statutory will containing the proposed terms and…

  • 4 Oct 2024

    RE WSY

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2713
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH78/2011

    Proceedings under Part II of the MHO are protective and the paramount consideration is the MIP's requirements; a relative may be heard but has no absolute right and cannot convert the supervisory jurisdiction into an adversarial forum. Whether a buy-out is in the MIP's best interest turns materially on valuation and terms, which are not merely procedural; the Committee should negotiate terms and seek court authorisation as necessary. On the facts the Buy-out Summons was dismissed because the Court will not compel the Committee to accept the proposed buy-out absent clear demonstration that it…

  • 4 Oct 2024

    RE WSY

    Citation
    [2024] HKCFI 2713
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH80/2011

    The Buy‑out Summons was dismissed because the proposed buy‑out was not shown to be demonstrably in the paramount interests of the MIP: material valuation disputes and commercial terms were substantive rather than merely procedural, the supervisory jurisdiction is protective not a forum for resolving inter partes business negotiations, and the Committee retains discretion to seek compliance with the Setting Aside Order or negotiate terms; however the Court authorized the Committee not to seek restitution or recourse against CK in respect of two properties already sold by KH.

  • 17 Feb 2022

    LCK v. DLKY Committee of the Estate of WSY, appointed by the Order of Deputy High Court Judge L. Chan dated 13 August 2012 under HCMH Nos. 78 and 80 of 2011 AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 496
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH7/2016

    The court was satisfied WSY lacked testamentary capacity and that making a statutory will and settling a New CK Trust best advanced WSY's paramount interests; the statutory will adopted distributions and trust terms that, on the evidence and by inference from WSY's character and family circumstances, reflect what she would have reasonably done if notionally restored to capacity; accordingly the Impugned Transactions were set aside by concession, the New CK Trust and statutory will were ordered in specified terms, and costs were apportioned and taxed as described.

  • 17 Feb 2022

    DLKY (Committee of the Estate of WSY) v. LCK AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2022] HKCFI 496
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA398/2017

    The court was satisfied there was reason to believe WSY lacked testamentary capacity and therefore made a statutory will on her behalf that reflects what she would have done if notionally restored; it found a trust for CK (New CK Trust) was the preferable mechanism to protect CK's long‑term welfare and reduce litigation risk; the impugned transactions were set aside by concession; the statutory will provides specified monetary sums to CK (via trust), to the two biological sons (L Brothers) HK$40M each and divides the remaining residue among the LH family in three equal shares; costs ordered m…

  • 6 Oct 2020

    RE LHHK

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2552
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMH121/2019

    Given credible medical evidence of LHHK's incapacity and that a committee must be appointed, the court found PL unsuitable because of concerns about her health and ongoing psychiatric follow-up, lack of demonstrated personal involvement in managing LHHK's affairs, potential conflict of interest arising from wills executed with the carer, and the complexity and value of the estate requiring neutral independent management and investigation. The Official Solicitor, having consented and being neutral, is the appropriate appointee; ancillary cost directions and publication directions follow.

  • 16 Jul 2010

    RE LLC

    Citation
    RE LLC
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2656/2006

    The Secretary's participation was legitimate and not unreasonably adversarial; it was not unreasonable to proceed to the substantive hearing. The Secretary must bear the costs of his unsuccessful application to adduce a supplemental psychiatric report (to be paid to Niece #2 on a party-and-party basis) but otherwise both Niece #2's and the Secretary's costs of the proceedings are to be paid from LLC's estate on the common fund basis, save that the Secretary bears his own costs of the Application. A certificate for two counsel was granted.

  • 13 Apr 2010

    RE LLC

    Citation
    RE LLC
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2656/2006

    The court found on the balance of medical and factual evidence that LLC suffered severe transcortical mixed aphasia and vascular dementia by August–September 2006, lacked testamentary capacity and could not have known or approved the 2006 Will; accordingly the 2006 Will did not represent her testamentary wishes and the court ordered a statutory will in terms of the 2001 Will (modified for the death of XYZ) and appointed Niece #2 and Niece #1 as joint executors.

  • 20 Jun 2007

    RE CYL

    Citation
    RE CYL
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP2567/2005

    The court concluded there were reasonable grounds to believe CYL lacked testamentary capacity under s10B(4)(b) based on medical evidence and observed impairment; exercising its discretion under s10A it authorized a statutory will providing specific legacies of HK$300,000 each to Madam Huang and Lai Yee and the residue to the daughter, ordered the Kiu Yu property to be sold for not less than HK$600,000, and directed that costs of the Official Solicitor and Committee be borne by the estate (to be taxed).