Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Testamentary capacity

  • 27 Mar 2026

    LAU WING KIN v. LEUNG SIU CHING

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1812
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP3/2019

    On the evidence the court found the December 2016 will was validly executed, the Deceased had knowledge and approved its contents and the defendant failed to prove fraudulent calumny or lack of knowledge and approval; although the September 2016 will was procured by undue influence from Auntie, that finding does not revive the September will because the December 2016 will is valid and is therefore pronounced in solemn form.

  • 16 Mar 2026

    ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1584
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP10/2020

    Vivien's specific discovery application was dismissed because she failed to establish requisite relevance and necessity under Order 24 (no prima facie showing that the documents would advance or damage the pleaded cases beyond speculative fishing); alternatively, even if relevance were established, the drafts and correspondence were protected by legal advice privilege in the factual context where solicitors were engaged to prepare the documents (a Balabel scenario), and Angela could assert privilege on her own behalf and on behalf of the deceased's estate, thus defeating the discovery claim.

  • 2 Mar 2026

    CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1147
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP22/2019

    The court held that most challenged paragraphs were relevant to the plaintiff's newly pleaded undue influence claim because they rebut the allegation that the Deceased was mentally and emotionally vulnerable in 2015; accordingly those paragraphs were permitted to remain. However, specific passages that were collateral, unrelated to the scope of the Amendment Order or addressed litigation conduct were struck out (Kuok para 22; Ma paras 6, 7 (last sentence), 8, 9; Tam para 26; D2 para 25). Given the stage of proceedings, a striking‑out remedy was appropriate and the defendants were granted leav…

  • 2 Mar 2026

    CHOW LILY v. CHOW WAI WAI VIOLET AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1148
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP22/2019

    The appeal was allowed because Professor Lo’s evidence is potentially highly relevant to the newly pleaded undue influence claim, the defendants made a timely and adequately explained application (8 months before trial) after attempts to obtain a statement, the estimated disruption is minimal, the plaintiff identified no real prejudice, the application was not an abuse of process given the Amendment Order, and overall justice under Order 1A r 2(2) required granting leave to issue the subpoena.

  • 27 Feb 2026

    ANGELA CHEN v. WAI WAI CHEN

    Citation
    [2026] HKCFI 1269
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP10/2020

    The court interpreted para 6 of the Order as permitting only additional expert evidence responsive to the defendant’s expert on the second issue (susceptibility to undue influence); because the defendant’s expert did not rely on ‘delusion’ for the second issue and pleadings did not plead delusion as a basis for undue influence, substantial parts of the plaintiff’s experts’ reports dealing solely with delusion and parts addressing Father’s capacity were beyond the permitted scope and were therefore expunged, while material discussing the pleaded medical conditions (vascular MCI and depression)…

  • 29 Dec 2025

    WONG MAN CHING, CHRISTINE, as executrix of the Estate of WONG TAI KIN, Deceased v. WONG YUNG MO AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 6443
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA305/2021

    Court found on the evidence that the Deceased was the beneficial owner of 34B and used its net proceeds towards half the Paragon down payment; the common intention at acquisition was 50:50, so the Estate holds 50% beneficial interest in Paragon; most joint account balances derived from the Deceased and were held on resulting trust (with a specific gift of HKD 750,000 found to the 1st defendant and the HKD 1,022,189 transfer to be repaid); transfers required to be accounted for and mesne profits awarded for the period of ouster.

  • 30 Oct 2025

    TAN CHOO PIN AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4788
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP3/2021

    The court found the three Form As manifested Fathers clear intention that the Elison/Credit Suisse account be held on trust for the five siblings in equal shares; the funds were fathers and were misapplied by TCS and Mother; defendants were liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt and liable to equitable compensation (60% share of unaccounted funds) with tracing and an enquiry; limitation did not bar claims due to concealment and section 20(1)(b); on probate the court found Father had testamentary capacity, knew and approved the 2008 Joint Will and codicil, was not subject to und…

  • 30 Oct 2025

    TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHOO SUAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 4788
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCA439/2020

    The Form As were repeated, contemporaneous, clear declarations by Elisons officers that the Credit Suisse account was held for the five siblings in equal shares; accordingly an express trust was validly constituted over the chose in action and withdrawals constituted breaches. TCS and Mother, as directors/signatories, knowingly received and assisted the breaches and are liable for dishonest assistance and knowing receipt; plaintiffs are entitled to proprietary remedies, tracing and equitable compensation (60% of unaccounted withdrawals = US$2,399,310) and an account/enquiry. The limitation d…

  • 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 Aug 2025

    CHAN SHU LAM v. CHAN CHAU WAH

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 3338
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAP6/2020

    The court refused to vary the costs order nisi and maintained that the Plaintiff's costs and 65% of the Defendant's costs be paid out of the Deceased's estate because (i) the proceedings involved two issues apportioned 65% to probate and 35% to beneficial ownership and it was just to order one holistic costs regime, (ii) the Defendant had reasonable grounds to challenge the 2019 Will given the Deceased's and Plaintiff's conduct and medical/circumstantial doubts, and (iii) the Plaintiff's dishonest litigation conduct warranted disapproval and affected apportionment; accordingly the existing or…