Your World of Legal Intelligence
 Hong Kong | 1-800-335-6202

Lai Hoi Yee v An Chi Pun, The Personal Representative Of The Estate Of Kwan Sui Lin, Deceased

Judgment Cited authorities 3 Cited in Precedent Map Related
Vincent
Judgment Date03 October 2016
Year2016
Judgement NumberHCMP2078/2015
Subject MatterMiscellaneous Proceedings
CourtHigh Court (Hong Kong)
HCA557A/2014 KWAN CHI PUN in his personal capacity and the executor of the estate of Kwan Sui Lin, deceased v. LAI HOI YEE AND ANOTHER

HCA 557/2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

ACTION NO. 557 OF 2014

________________________

BETWEEN
KWAN CHI PUN in his personal capacity and the executor of the estate of Kwan Sui Lin, deceased Plaintiff
and
LAI HOI YEE 1st Defendant
LAI KAM MING 2nd Defendant

HCMP 2078/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 2078 OF 2015

(TRANSFERRED FROM FCMP 225 OF 2012)

________________________

IN THE MATTER OF the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased, late of Flat B, 1/F, Block 8, Chevalier Garden, No. 2, Hang Shun Street, Shatin, New Territories.
and
IN THE MATTER OF Section 4 of the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependence) Ordinance, Cap. 481.

________________________

BETWEEN
LAI HOI YEE Applicant
and
KWAN CHI PUN, the Personal Representative of the estate of KWAN SUI LIN, Deceased Respondent

________________________

Before: Hon Anthony Chan J in Chambers
Date of Hearing: 3 October 2016
Date of Decision: 3 October 2016

_______________

D E C I S I O N

_______________


1. This is an application by Hoi Yee and Lai[1] to vary the costs order nisi made in the Judgment in these actions dated 5 August 2016. It is contended by them that there should be no order as to costs.

2. I am unable to accede to this application for the following reasons :

(i) These are not probate action (the Will was never disputed), and I do not believe that the principles applied to a testamentary suit (see Mitchell v Gard 164 ER 1280), which are heavily relied upon by Hoi Yee and Lai, should be applied in this case. I note the observation made by Briggs J in Pearson v Lehman Brothers Finance SA [2010] EWHC 3044 (Ch), para 13.

(ii) I take into account the observation of Ormrod J made in Re Fullard (deceased) [1981] 2 All ER 796 at 799b-c concerning a small estate. The Estate is not substantial and the unfairness of depriving Kwan, who has lost his earning capacity, of the costs of the trial cannot be ignored.

(iii) I agree with Mr Wong, appearing for Kwan, that Hoi...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT