Ang Jimmy Tjun Min v. Ang Eileen and Another

HCMP 94/2022
HCMP 322/2022

(Heard together)

[2024] HKCFI 3711

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS 94 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS 322 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.This is the substantive hearing to consider the appointment of an independent administrator of the estate of the Deceased pursuant to the order of DHCJ Phoebe Man dated 4 December 2023.

2.In the light of the fact that some legal proceedings have been commenced on behalf of the estate, an administrator will need to consider the estate’s position in relation to these proceedings after the court appoints the administrator today. And naturally, an administrator, who is a solicitor, would be the most suitable candidate to do this. 

3.After today, another major task which the administrator needs to do is to administer what the parties refer to as the Ho Tung Road Property.  This property is being rented out for income.  It seems to me that an administrator, who is a solicitor, is also well-qualified to administer this property. 

4.Having come to the view that the court should appoint an administrator who is a solicitor, the only issue is whether the court should appoint Mr Cheng Tsz Ying (“Mr Cheng”)  or Mr Derick Tam (“Mr Tam”). 

5.It seems to me that the most important factors in guiding the court’s discretion for making this appointment are the candidates’ independence, professional experience, and fees. 

6.There is no issue as to the independence of Mr Cheng or Mr Tam. 

7.As to their charges, Mr Cheng’s proposed hourly rate is HK$5,800 and Mr Tam’s proposed hourly rate is HK$5,500.  Both of them are agreeable to cap their fees.  I consider that their proposed fees to be reasonable.  And I think their difference in the proposed hourly rate is minimal. 

8.As far as their professional experience is considered, it appears to me that both Mr Cheng and Mr Tam have the requisite experience in dealing with matters concerning the administration of estates. 

9.However, I note that Mr Cheng has the experience in acting as an independent administrator.  He says in his CV that he has been “appointed by the court as independent administrator and joint administrators of estates involving different groups of family members with conflicting interests”. 

10.On the other hand, I note that Mr Tam in his CV has only set out his experience acting as solicitors for executors and administrators.  In a more recent letter dated 25 April 2024, Mr Tam said he has acted as an administrator in his capacity as the lawful attorney of the persons entitled to the grants in some non-contentious cases. 

11.Be that as it may, it does not appear that Mr Tam has the experience in acting as an administrator in cases where he has to deal with conflicting views or interests of the beneficiaries. 

12.I am of the view that a solicitor who has acted as a personal representative of a contentious estate would be best suited to act as the administrator for the estate.  He would have had the experience of acting as an administrator and dealing with the beneficiaries of the estate who may well have very different or even conflicting views on how the estate may be administered. 

13.As to the point raised by Mr To as to whether there will be sufficient support from Mr Cheng’s firm in relation to the administration work, it is somewhat speculative to say that Mr Cheng’s colleagues are or are not able to provide the relevant support if and when that becomes necessary.  In exercising my discretion to make the appointment, I am not prepared to put much weight on this factor. 

14.In conclusion, with all due respect to Mr Tam, I consider that Mr Cheng is a more suitable candidate to be appointed as the sole administrator of the estate. 

15.I will now invite the parties to agree on the terms of the order.

Mr Ken To and Mr Chester Kwan, instructed by Hon & Co, for the plaintiff in HCMP 94/2022 and the 1^st defendant in HCMP 322/2022

Ms Ebony Ling, instructed by K B Chau & Co, for the 1^st defendant in HCMP 94/2022 and the 2^nd defendant in HCMP 322/2022

Ms Sabrina Ho and Mr Brian Fan, instructed by P C Woo & Co, for the 2^nd defendant in HCMP 94/2022 and the plaintiff in HCMP 322/2022