Cheung Lai Ming v. Cheung Hon Wah, Administrator of the Estate of Zhang Ke Yi and in His Personal Capacity

Read the full judgment text of HCMP 582/2022 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 22 September 2022.

1. This is the application by plaintiff (“ P ”) by Originating Summons to remove the 1 st defendant (“ D1 ”) as the administrator of the estate of their mother (the “ Estate ”), rendering of an account, and delivery up of assets of the Estate.

Cites 5 cases

Case No.HCMP 582/2022[2022] HKCFI 2942
Court
High Court CFI
Date22 Sep 2022
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMP 582/2022

[2022] HKCFI 2942

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 582 OF 2022

__________________

 

IN THE MATTER of the estate of ZHANG KE YI (陳可意) deceased, late of 5th Floor, No. 23 Soares Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong

 

and

 

IN THE MATTER of sections 33(3) and 56 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10)

 

and

 

IN THE MATTER of an application pursuant to Order 85 Rule 2(3) of the Rules of High Court (Cap 4A)

__________________

BETWEEN

CHEUNG LAI MING (張賴明) Plaintiff
and
CHEUNG HON WAH (張漢華),
Administrator of the estate of ZHANG KE YI (陳可意) and in his personal capacity
1st Defendant
CHEUNG LAI YING (張賴瑩) 2nd Defendant
CHEUNG CHING WAH (張正華) 3rd Defendant
CHEUNG KWOK KIN (張國健) 4th Defendant
CHEUNG KWOK CHI (張國治) 5th Defendant
CHEUNG WAI SZE (張惠施) 6th Defendant

__________________

Before: Hon K Yeung J in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 22 September 2022

Date of Decision: 22 September 2022

__________________

DECISION

__________________


1.This is the application by plaintiff (“P”) by Originating Summons to remove the 1st defendant (“D1”) as the administrator of the estate of their mother (the “Estate”), rendering of an account, and delivery up of assets of the Estate.

2.Each of the surviving beneficiaries of the Estate are either named as a party (the 1st to 6th defendants), or has written in to express consent to the application (see the copies of written consent exhibited as “CLM-16”).

3.I have read the affirmation of service of Lau Ho Lam. I am satisfied that the process and all the necessary documents have been validly served upon the defendants. None of the defendants has filed any acknowledgement of service.

4.I have read P’s affirmation in support filed on 13 May 2022.

5.I have read the written submissions of Mr Max So of 18 September 2022 and the authorities cited therein, which include section 33 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance Cap 10, Tsang Wing Kwai v Tsang Wing Fai (No.2) [2019] 1 HKLRD 1300, Chan Yu Hong v Chan Kam Hong and others (HCMP 888/2013, 19 July 2017), Thian Sum v Yung Shui Tong [2019] HKCFI 2867, Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415 and Wong Wing Sze Tiffany v Tsang Wing Fai [2019] 4 HKLRD 77.

6.I am satisfied that valid grounds for the relief sought have been made out, which include substantial and unjustified delay in the administration of the Estate, and failure to keep and render account despite repeated requests.

7.I allow the application and grant an order in terms of the draft order at pages 234 and 235 of the hearing bundle as amended (in particular on the question of costs).

  (Keith Yeung)
  Judge of the Court of First Instance
  High Court

Mr So Ho Yee Max, instructed by Lo, Wong & Tsui, for the Plaintiff

The 1st to 6th Defendants were not represented and did not appear