Wong Chiu Wing v. Wong Siu Wah
Read the full judgment text of HCMP 1582/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 October 2020.
1. This is the first hearing of P’s Originating Summons dated 25 September 2019 for an order that:-
Cites 1 case
|
HCMP 1582/2019 [2020] HKCFI 2680 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1582 OF 2019 ____________
_____________
_____________ Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers Date of Hearing: 14 October 2020 Date of Decision: 14 October 2020 ____________________ DECISION ____________________ 1.This is the first hearing of P’s Originating Summons dated 25 September 2019 for an order that:-
2.D and the Deceased were husband and wife. P is their only daughter. 3.The Deceased died intestate on 21 September 2011. 4.The main asset which the Deceased held prior to her death is the family home situated at the 1st and 2nd Floors, Block C, Jade Forest Villa, 74 Tung Tsz, Tai Po, New Territories (the “Property”). The Deceased is the sole registered legal owner of the Property. 5.Letters of administration in respect of the Estate was granted to D on 1 February 2018. 6.P has between February 2018 and January 2019 repeatedly demanded and requested D to give her information on the Estate and D’s administration thereof. D has failed to. 7.There is no need for this Court to go into details of D’s conduct in that regard. At §20 of his written submissions, Mr Chan, Counsel for D, “concedes that a better account can and should be rendered…”. 8.Having considered the evidence, I agree that the concession is correctly made. 9.I have no hesitation in granting the relief sought as set out at §§1(a) and (b) above. 10.In respect of the further/alternative relief of removal of D as the administrator of the Estate, I bear in mind the following matters:
11.In the circumstances, I will adjourn P’s application for D’s removal pending the rendering and inspection of the inventory and account. I grant parties 14 days to file evidence on nomination of alternative administrator. That does not preclude P from proposing herself. 12.On the question of costs, I see force in Mr Ho’s submissions that costs of today’s hearing should be to P as she has got substantially what she sought. I so order, which I summarily assess at HK$70,000. The costs of the Originating Summons are otherwise reserved.
Mr Martin Ho, instructed by Charles Yeung Clement Lam Liu & Yip, for the Plaintiff Mr Edward M H Chan, instructed by Matthew Ng & Co, for the Defendant | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under HCMP 1582/2019