Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Validity of wills

Legal area

Court

5 Dec 2019

TSO WAI MOON AND OTHERS v. CHU SAU LING

Citation

[2019] HKCFI 2901
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP18/2014

On the totality of the evidence (contemporaneous handwritten scripts, video recordings of drafting and hospital conversations, solicitor's explanation and witnesses) the court was satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the deceased knew and approved the contents of the 2012 will; deletion of a clause regarding sale/debts was intentional; partial intestacy does not invalidate a will limited to specific property; accordingly the 2012 will was proved in solemn form and the earlier 1995 will was revoked.
8 Aug 2018

CHU KWOK KEE KOOKIE v. CHU KWOK BING AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1806
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2018

The 1st defendant failed to establish grounds for summary dismissal; Order 34 r 2 did not apply because no period to set the action down had been fixed; the disputed issues of testamentary capacity and conflicting medical evidence are triable issues requiring a full trial with oral testimony and cross-examination; accordingly the defendant's summonses were dismissed and the action will proceed to trial.
26 Jul 2018

ZHAO SHAOYUAN, the executrix of the Estate of PUN HOK CHI, Deceased v. CHAN MEE LIN

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1724
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP855/2018

On the available evidence (Cemetery transfer documentation, multiple affirmations from Cemetery personnel and contemporaneous nursing/consultation notes indicating the deceased expressed burial wishes and handed funeral matters to the plaintiff) the 2nd will is prima facie the deceased's last will and the plaintiff is prima facie the executrix entitled to possession of the body; the deceased's clear expressed wish to be buried in the Shenzhen Cemetery outweighs defendant's assertions and the defendant's alternate remedies are inappropriate; accordingly the plaintiff is authorised to retrieve…
10 Jan 2017

HO HON PIU v. HO HON KA

Citation

HO HON PIU v. HO HON KA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCA660/2014

Court rejected the alleged family fund and oral agreements for lack of credible evidence and inherent improbability, accepted defendant's account that he was sole legal and beneficial owner of the North Point property and that Chai Wan vested in defendant as surviving joint tenant; court held the will was properly executed but the residuary disposition to plaintiff is void under s10(1) Wills Ordinance, so the estate is distributed as on intestacy.
14 Oct 2016

MAK NGUN TAI AND OTHERS v. FUNG MING IP AND OTHERS

Citation

MAK NGUN TAI AND OTHERS v. FUNG MING IP AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP37/2015

Given the undisputed circumstances including psychiatric evidence of cognitive impairment, large unexplained disposals of assets after September 2011 and risk of dissipation, it was necessary and expedient to appoint an independent administrator pendente lite to inquire into inter vivos dispositions; by contrast s10 PAO does not vest the estate in the Official Administrator where a will exists (even if contested), therefore the OA cannot be directed to perform the contentious investigative and litigation functions sought and the claim against the OA in specified paragraphs and schedules is st…
30 Sept 2016

CKKK v. CKB

Citation

CKKK v. CKB
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV162/2015

The Court accepted the detailed expert psychiatric reports (Dr John Wong and Dr CK Wong) that MCP is suffering from severe dementia and thereby incapable under s7 MHO; procedural irregularities (use of ex parte originating summons and initial absence of two medical certificates) were excused on evidence and PD30.1; the intervener's evidence was unreliable due to conflict of interest (interpreter role and beneficiaries under later wills/POA/EPA); accordingly the Judge's appointment of the applicant as Committee was proper and the appeal failed.
14 Feb 2011

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHINACHEM CHARITABLE FOUNDATION LTD v. CHAN CHUN CHUEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV101/2010

The appeal is dismissed because the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge's findings that the attesting witnesses did not attest the 2006 will and that expert handwriting and scientific evidence demonstrated the signatures were highly skilled simulations; the judge properly considered inherent improbabilities and appropriately weighed and excluded inappropriate comparison samples, leading to an unassailable conclusion that the 2006 will was a forgery; indemnity costs were justified given the defendant knowingly advanced a forged document.
10 Jul 2008

LI CHI LOY v. LI LAI LAN CANDIAC AND OTHERS

Citation

LI CHI LOY v. LI LAI LAN CANDIAC AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP4/2003

The court found the 1996 Will valid but concluded the 2001 Will was valid and revoked the 1996 Will: the proponent (plaintiff) discharged the persuasive burden by proving due execution under s.24, testamentary capacity, and that the deceased knew and approved the 2001 Will (instructions given, will read over, signature and fingerprint, corroborating contemporaneous documents and prior dispositions); the second rule in Barry v Butlin was engaged but the suspicious circumstances were dispelled on the balance of probabilities; defendants failed to prove undue influence.
28 Feb 2007

CHAN LAI FONG v. CHAN KAM SHUN AND ANOTHER

Citation

CHAN LAI FONG v. CHAN KAM SHUN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAP8/2005

Leave to amend the Defence and Counterclaim was granted because the Plaintiff failed to show specific prejudice that could not be compensated by costs, the amendments did not change the Defendants' case in substance, the application was not shown to be in bad faith or unduly late and any prejudice could be addressed by costs; accordingly the court exercised its discretion in favour of the Defendants.
25 Oct 2006

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN

Citation

NINA KUNG v. WANG DIN SHIN
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FACV12/2004

The Court exercised its discretion to order costs to follow the event but made proportional allowances: respondent to pay one‑third of appellant's costs in the Court of First Instance and two‑thirds of her costs in the Court of Appeal and Court of Final Appeal (taxed if not agreed); respondent to pay two‑thirds of additional administrators pendente lite expenses (excluding sums that would have been incurred in any event); respondent to disclose the identity of the lender of approximately HK$41 million; liberty granted to the appellant to apply against alleged funders; certificate limited to t…