Law Wai Hay v. Law Po Chong Priscilla, The Administrator of the Estate of Cheung Wai Fun
Read the full judgment text of CACV 91/2014 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 1 August 2016.
1. On 16 October 2015 this court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ B. Chu (now B. Chu, J) that she render accounts and complete the administration of the estate of Madam Cheung Wai Fan, deceased within the time limits ordered. The court also dismissed the defendant’s summons for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. Reasons for Judgment were handed down on 29 October 2015.
Cited by 2 cases
|
CACV 91/2014 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 91 OF 2014 (ON APPEAL FROM HCMP NO. 3477 OF 2013) _______________________
_______________________
________________________________________________________________ SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS ________________________________________________________________ Hon Yuen JA (giving the Decision of the Court): 1.On 16 October 2015 this court dismissed the defendant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ B. Chu (now B. Chu, J) that she render accounts and complete the administration of the estate of Madam Cheung Wai Fan, deceased within the time limits ordered. The court also dismissed the defendant’s summons for leave to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. Reasons for Judgment were handed down on 29 October 2015. 2.We summarily assessed the costs of the appeal at $80,000 and ordered the defendant to pay the costs personally (ie not out of the estate). 3.On 12 November 2015 the defendant applied by notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Directions were given for the matter to be dealt with on paper. 4.On 1 June 2016 this court dismissed the application as it did not satisfy the requirements of s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 as the formulated questions were essentially fact-sensitive. 5.We directed that the parties provide written submissions for a summary assessment of costs for that application. This was duly done. 6.Having considered the submissions, we take the view that the matter was straightforward and given that counsel was instructed, there can be a substantial saving in the solicitors’ time costs. We would order the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of $20,000. This should also be paid personally (ie not out of the estate).
Messrs. Lim & Lok, for the Plaintiff Defendant, unrepresented and acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 91/2014