劉澍財 對 劉麗嫻及另一人

HCCA 6/2024

[2026] HKCFI 3878

香港特別行政區

高等法院

原訟法庭

知會備忘編號2024年第6號

_________________

_________________

_________________

判 決 書

簡介

1.於2025年9月17日，黃健棠聆案官 (下稱「黃聆案官」)，就劉麗嫻女士 (LAU LAI HAN)及劉細麗女士(LAU SAI LAI) (共稱「提出警告人」) 2024年12月16日共同發出的傳票 (下稱「該傳票」)，作出下列命令 (下稱「該命令」)：

(1)  由知會備忘登記人劉澍財先生(下稱「劉先生」)在香港高等法院遺產承辦處存檔的所有對張恩女士遺產登記的知會備忘即時失效，包括：

(i)  HCCA 4149/2023

(ii)  HCCA 6/2024

(iii)  HCCA 4183/2024

(iv)  HCCA 711/2025

(2)  在未得到法庭許可前，劉先生不可再存檔任何知會備忘；

(3)  即時撤銷由劉先生申請的遺產承辦案件編號: HCAG 6963/2025；

(4)  遺產承辦處會繼續處理由提出警告人申請的遺產承辦案件 (案件編號:HCAG 13938/2023)，當提出警告人可以解答所有法庭問題以及可以證實她們的承辦權，法庭可向她們授予遺產管理書；

(5)  劉先生須支付本案件/訴訟的訟費予提出警告人，包括大律師證書，相關訟費以簡易程序方式評估。

2.劉先生不服黃聆案官的判決，於2025年11月18日存檔上訴通知書，申請逾期上訴許可(下稱「逾期上訴許可申請」)。劉先生並於同日存檔了他的一份非宗教式誓詞。

3.劉先生在聆訊前2026年3月23日的信件請求本席批准傳召第二提出警告人劉細麗女士出庭作證，以證明他的申述正確。本席以2026年3月30日的信件回覆劉先生任何不依循高等法院規則作出的申請不會獲得法庭受理。

4.在聆訊中，劉先生再次作出上述申請(下稱「該傳召申請」)。本席即時拒絕該傳召申請。

5.劉先生在2026年4月22日發出傳票，針對本席拒絕該傳召申請的決定申請上訴許可(下稱「新上訴許可申請」)。雙方就這項申請存檔了書面陳詞。

6.在這判決書中，本席會一併處理劉先生的逾期上訴許可申請及新上訴許可申請。

基本事實背景

7.首先本席交代雙方爭議的事實背景。

8.劉漢先生和張恩女士是夫妻關係，並育有四名子女。長子劉燦榮（劉包然）先生在2021年去世, 劉麗嫻女士是二女，劉先生是三子，而劉細麗女士是孻女。

9.劉漢先生在1979年去世。張恩女士於2022年12月26日在香港病逝。

10.張恩女士在生前並沒有訂立任何遺囑。她的遺產包括她的兩個銀行戶口，存款約有港幣20萬元及她在其長子的遺產的權益。

11.梁詩韻小姐(下稱「梁小姐」)是劉麗嫻女士的長女。

12.除了本訴訟外，劉先生之前開展了兩個法律行動控告兩名劉女士，包括區域法院案件DCCJ 2990/2023 及小額錢債審裁處案件SCTC 13939/2024。劉先生向區域法院申請張恩女士的身份證，存摺，屋契等文件，其申請失敗告終。

13.至於小額錢債審裁處的案件，雙方達成和解作結。

適用法律原則

14.代表提出警告人張大律師向法庭提供了合適的案例，解釋有關法律原則。

15.《高等法院規則》第58號命令第1(3)條規則適用於就聆案官的決定向原訟法庭提出的上訴。該規則明確訂明除非法庭另有命令，否則通知書必須在遭上訴的判決、命令或決定作出後14 天內發出，並必須在發出後5天內送達。

16.劉先生的上訴通知書應該在2025年10月1日或之前發出。他的上訴通知書逾期超過了一個月。

17.有關延展時限存檔上訴通知書的申請，袁家寧法官在Sum Yee Ming 訴The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company 及其他人 [2021] HKCA 103 列出以下久已確立的考慮因素(見第21段)：

(1)  延誤的長短；

(2)  延誤的理由；

(3)  擬上訴的成功機會；及

(4)  延展上訴時限對答辯人的不利（但即使沒有不利，並不等如應該延展時限)。

18.關於劉先生的知會備忘的爭議，《無爭議遺囑認證規則》第10A章第44條(下稱「第44條」) 訂明知會備忘的要求及相關法律程序。有關規則如下：

「(1)任何人如欲確保任何授予書不會在他本人不知悉的情況下獲蓋章，可將知會備忘在承辦處登記。

(2)任何人如欲將知會備忘登記(在本條中稱為知會備忘登記人)，可在承辦處的適當簿冊內填具適當的指明表格，並取得有關人員就該項登記而發出的認收書，或將以指明表格填具的通知以郵遞方式致送司法常務官，而郵誤損失自負。

(3)凡知會備忘是經由律師代表知會備忘登記人登記的，則該知會備忘登記人的姓名須在按照第(2)款填具的表格內述明。

(4)除本條另有規定外，知會備忘須自登記當日起計的6個月內有效，逾期即停止生效，但對再度作出一份或多份知會備忘的登記並無影響。

(5)…

(6)…

(7)承辦處可應任何有利害關係的人(在本條中稱為提出警告的人)的要求，以指明表格就知會備忘發出警告，該項警告須述明該人的權益，如該人是根據一份遺囑提出申索，則述明該遺囑的日期，該警告書並須規定知會備忘登記人就其可能在死者遺產中享有的任何對立權益提供詳情；而每項警告均須送達知會備忘登記人。

(8)未就上述警告呈交應訴書的知會備忘登記人，可於任何時間藉着在承辦處發出通知而撤回其知會備忘，而該項知會備忘立即停止生效，如已就該項知會備忘提出警告，則知會備忘登記人須隨即向提出警告的人發出已將知會備忘撤回的通知。

(9)知會備忘登記人如擁有與提出警告的人對立的權益，可於該警告送達他時起計8天內(送達當日包括在內)，或在無人根據本條第(11)款提交誓章的情況下，則於其後任何時間，藉着提交適當的指明表格及在適當的簿冊上登記的方式而在承辦處呈交應訴書，並須於其後隨即提出警告的人送達一份蓋有法院印章的該表格副本。

(10)知會備忘登記人如無擁有與提出警告的人對立的權益，但擬就給予提出警告的人的授予書的蓋章提出反對因由，則可於該警告送達他時起計8天內(送達當日包括在內)，或在無人根據本條第(11)款提交誓章的情況下，則於其後任何時間，就該項警告呈交應訴書，並發出及送達一份請求指示的傳票，傳訊各當事人到司法常務官席前。

(11)如應訴的時限已屆滿，而知會備忘登記人仍未呈交應訴書，則提出警告的人可在承辦處提交誓章，證明該項警告已妥為送達而他並無接獲根據上款條文發出的請求指示的傳票，該項知會備忘立即停止生效。

(11A)…

(12)除非司法常務官另有指示，否則 ——

(a)在法律程序以傳喚書或動議方式開始時有效的任何知會備忘，如無依據本條第(8)款撤回，則仍繼續生效，直至在該法律程序中被法院裁定為有權獲得授予的人提出授予的申請為止，該項申請一經提出，已知悉該法律程序的一方所登記的任何知會備忘即停止生效；

(b)如已就任何知會備忘的警告呈交應訴書，則該知會備忘須繼續生效，直至遺囑認證訴訟開始為止；

(c)…

(13)除非獲司法常務官許可，否則知會備忘登記人在其知會備忘根據本條第(11)或(12)款停止生效的情況下，不得再度作出或由他人代為再度作出知會備忘登記。」

19.在 Fok Po Nam v HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd [2018] 1 HKC 567中，周家明法官(當時官階)就第44條作出清晰的解釋:

“18. … In my view, the question of what interest a person must have in order to justify the entering of a caveat by that person should be approached from a consideration of the purposes and effect of a caveat. In this regard, the proper starting point must be the statutory scheme under the PAO and NCPR governing the entry and disposition of caveats.
19.	Section 45 of the PAO states that: -
	‘A caveat against a grant of probate or administration may be entered in the Registry.’
20.	Rule 44 of the NCPR, so far as relevant, provides as follows:
	“ (1) Any person who wishes to ensure that no grant is sealed without notice to himself may enter a caveat in the Registry.
	(4) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, a caveat shall remain in force for 6 months from the date on which it is entered and shall then cease to have effect, without prejudice to the entry of a further caveat or caveats.
	(5) The Registrar shall maintain an index of caveats entered in the Registry and on receiving an application for a grant, he shall cause the index to be searched.
	(6) The Registrar shall again cause the index to be searched before he shall allow any grant to be sealed and shall not allow any grant to be sealed if there is an effective caveat in respect thereof:
	Provided that no caveat shall operate to prevent the sealing of a grant on the day on which the caveat is entered.
	(7) A caveat may be warned by the issue from the Registry of a warning in the specified form at the instance of any person interested (in this rule called “the person warning”) which shall state his interest and, if he claims under a will, the date of the will, and shall require the caveator to give particulars of any contrary interest which he may have in the estate of the deceased; and every warning shall be served on the caveator.
	(9) A caveator having an interest contrary to that of the person warning may, within 8 days of service of the warning upon him inclusive of the day of such service, or at any time thereafter if no affidavit has been filed under paragraph (11) of this rule, enter an appearance in the Registry by filing an appropriate specified form…
	(10) A caveator having no interest contrary to that of the person warning but wishing to show cause against the sealing of a grant to that person may, within 8 days of service of the warning upon him inclusive of the day of such service, or at any time thereafter if no affidavit has been filed under paragraph (11) of this rule, enter an appearance to the warning and issue and serve a summons for directions, which shall be returnable before the Registrar.
	(11) If the time limited for appearance has expired and the caveator has not entered an appearance, the person warning may file in the Registry an affidavit showing that the warning was duly served and that he has not received a summons for directions under the last foregoing paragraph, and thereupon the caveat shall cease to have effect.
	(12) Unless the Registrar otherwise directs-
	(b) any caveat in respect of which an appearance to a warning has been entered shall remain in force until the commencement of a probate action.’
21.	From the above provisions, it is can be seen that: -
	‘(1) The effect of entering a caveat is that no grant relating to the estate of the deceased can be sealed without notice to the caveator.
	(2) The provisions in sub-rules (5) and (6) ensure that no grant would be sealed by the Registrar where there is an effective caveat in force in relation to the estate of that deceased.
	(3) By issuing a warning, the person warning can compel the caveator to state whether he has any contrary interest “in the estate of the deceased” (sub-rule (7)).
	(4) The caveator, if he has a contrary interest, is then required to enter an appearance by filing an appropriate specified form. Pausing here, it may be noted that the specified form, namely, Form No.C1.4, requires him to set out “the interest of the caveator, stating the date of the Will, if any, under which such interest arises”.
	(5) On the other hand, if the caveator has no contrary interest but wishes to show cause against the sealing of a grant to the person warning, he is required to issue and serve a summons for directions returnable before the Registrar.’
22.	In so far as the purposes of entering a caveat are concerned, in Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraph 23.05, the following is stated: -
	‘The following are some of the purposes for which a caveat may be entered:
	(a) to give time to the caveator (objector) to make enquiries and to obtain such information as may enable him to determine whether or not there are grounds for opposing the grant;
	(b) to give any person interested in the estate an opportunity of bringing any question arising in respect of the grant before the court on summons; and
	(c) as a step preliminary to a probate claim, or to the issuing of a citation (notification).’
23.	Although the purposes mentioned in the above passage are not exhaustive, it is nevertheless instructive to note they relate to matters such as whether a grant of representation of the estate of the deceased should be made, to whom the grant should be made, and possibly the terms of the grant. Generally, these are matters which a person having some interest in the estate of the deceased may legitimately be concerned with, but not someone who has no interest in the estate.
24.	It is clear from Rule 44(7) that the legislature envisages that both the person warning and the caveator having a contrary interest would have some interest “in the estate of the deceased”. As earlier mentioned, if the caveator has, or asserts, an interest contrary to that of the person warning, he is required, under sub-rule (9), to enter an appearance in the Probate Registry by filing Form No.C1.4 (being the relevant specified form), and that form requires him to set out his interest. Examples of persons who may enter an appearance as having a contrary interest include an executor, legatee or devisee, the personal representative of a legatee or devisee, any other person claiming an interest under a will or codicil, a person claiming to be entitled to share in, or interested in, the estate of the deceased on his intestacy or partial intestacy, or the personal representative of any such person (see Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraphs 23.64 and 23.65).
25.	In my view, the same interest requirement must also be applicable to a caveator who does not have, or assert, any contrary interest to the person warning. An example would be where both are entitled to a grant in the same degree (see Parry & Kerridge, The Law of Succession, 12th Ed, at paragraph 19-02(ii)). At the time of the entry of a caveat, the caveator would not necessarily know whether there will be any person warning. Neither would the caveator necessarily know, at that time, that he has, or does not have, any interest contrary to that of the person warning.
26.	It cannot, I believe, have been the intention of the legislature that a person who does not have, or assert, any interest in the estate of the deceased should be entitled to be given prior notice of the sealing of a grant in respect of the estate of the deceased, or be entitled to issue a summons for directions so that his demands can be considered or entertained prior to the sealing of the grant, thereby enabling or permitting any busybody to interfere in the process of applying for and obtaining a grant of representation by the proper personal representative of the deceased.
27.	Support for the view that a person must have some interest in the estate of the deceased to justify the entering of a caveat can be found in the standard textbooks on probate law and practice. In Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraph 23.11, it is stated that‘[a] caveat (objection) can be entered by any person having or asserting an interest in the estate of the deceased, either by the party himself or his probate practitioner’.
28.	In Christopher Sherrin, Probate Practice in Hong Kong, 3rd Ed, at paragraph 5.053, it is stated that ‘[t]he applicant will have to show an interest in the estate sufficient to justify the caveat.’”

20.最後，根據確立已久的法律原則，原訟庭處理這類針對聆案官的判決作出的上訴時是以重新進行聆訊進行：見 吳月坤及陳維焜和陳維維[2025] HKCFI 3314 第14段。

討論

逾期上訴許可申請

21.劉先生的上訴通知書逾期超過了一個月，可算是一個長時間的延誤。劉先生卻沒有交代任何有效的逾期理由或合理的解釋。

22.至於劉先生所擬的上訴的成功機會，本席看不到有任何原因他作出的知會備忘登記可以維持有效。

23.劉先生從來沒有申明自己與兩名提出警告人在張恩女士的遺產擁有什麼對立的權益。他只是重重複複地提出對劉麗嫻女士與梁詩韻小姐的嚴重指控，聲稱她倆貪婪地企圖搶掠張恩女士的遺產及財物: 包括她的身份證及銀行存摺等等。但這都不是第44(7)條所指的對立權益。

24.即使劉先生聲稱有對立權益存在，不能爭議的就是他沒有按照第44(9)條的規定呈交應訴書。

25.另一方面，假若劉先生並不是依賴任何對立的權益，他也沒有按照第44(10)條的規定呈交應訴書。

26.劉先生沒有爭議提出警告人已經提交誓章，證明她們發出的警告已妥為送達。根據第44(11)條的規定，劉先生登記的知會備忘立即停止生效。

27.事實上，遺產承辦處以2024年4月16日的信件通知提出警告人劉先生的HCCA 4149/2023知會備忘已經根據第44(11)條自動失效。

28.同樣地，劉先生的HCCA 6/2024 知會備忘也是根據第44 (11)條自動喪失效力。

29.根據第44(13)條，由於劉先生沒有獲得司法常務官批出許可，張先生不得再度作出知會備忘登記。

30.雖然該傳票並沒有包括劉先生在HCCA 4183/2024及HCCA 711/2025的知會備忘，黃聆案官頒令這兩項未獲司法常務官批出許可而登記的知會備忘即時失效是合情合理及無可詬病的。

31.關於張恩女士遺產承辦的問題，提出警告人於2023年7月14日提出她們的共同申請：HCAG 13938/2023而劉先生則於2025年4月10日提出申請：HCAG 6963/2025。

32.根據《無爭議遺囑認證規則》第21(1)(ii)條，無遺囑的死者的子女有同等的申辦遺產管理的權利。

33.黃聆案官認為提出警告人是較劉先生合適的人選辦理張恩女士的遺產。本席完全同意黃聆案官的分析和結論。

34.首先，劉先生完全漠視第44條的規定，重複地作出知會備忘登記，濫用了司法程序。

35.再者，劉先生在其誓章及書面陳詞中交代了很多和本案沒有關連的細節，而他對劉麗嫻女士及梁小姐的指控完全缺乏任何實質的證據支持。更甚者，劉先生對提出警告人的代表律師及張大律師也作出嚴重的指控。本席不能信服劉先生可以按照法律及公平公正地辦理張恩女士的遺產。

36.劉先生自稱為張恩女士的遺產的首席合法承繼人及張恩女士的代理人。本席看不到有任何證據支持劉先生的說法。

37.至於劉先生聲稱在2022年12月28日召開的家庭會議中一致通過委任他為治喪委員會主席及遺產承辦人負責統籌奔喪及遺產管理等事宜，並展示一張只有他本人簽署的會議紀錄。

38.本席對這個會議紀錄的真實性抱有懷疑。正如張大律師指出，倘若真的有這樣一個家庭會議，會議記錄不應該只有劉先生一個人的簽署。劉先生也沒有理由留待2025年才申請承辦張恩女士的遺產。

39.基於上述理由，劉先生的逾期上訴許可申請缺乏理據，必須被駁回。本席認為該命令是正確無誤的。

新上訴許可申請

40.劉先生聲稱劉細麗女士知識水平低和無知，受到劉麗嫻女士和梁小姐的甜言蜜語利誘及教唆才同意簽署支持該傳票的共同誓章。劉先生指出劉細麗女士並沒有出庭應訊，懷疑她受到影響甚或是受到恐嚇，所以劉先生認為本席不應該拒絕該傳召申請。

41.本席認為劉先生在聆訊進行中提出該傳召申請是不合理的。首先，假若本席接納劉先生的申請，該逾期上訴許可申請的聆訊便需要押後。這是極不理想的。

42.另外，劉先生提出的質疑全屬他的臆測，沒有實質及客觀證供支持。

43.再者，劉先生的知會備忘的有效性和劉細麗女士的證供並無任何關係。劉先生的知會備忘失效是因他沒有顯示他在張恩女士的遺產中擁有任何對立權益及沒有按照第44條呈交應訴書。

44.本席不認為劉先生所擬上訴有任何合理的勝訴機會，所以拒絕批准劉先生新上訴許可申請。

45.最後，本席留意到劉先生在其陳詞中對黄聆案官的各種批評。由於針對聆案官的上訴是以重審形式進行，本席不認為須要逐一回應劉先生對聆案官的批評。總括來說，本席認為劉先生的批評是不公平和缺乏理據的。

結論及命令

46.縱觀所有證供及雙方的陳詞，本席的結論是劉先生的兩項申請必須被駁回。本席認同該命令是完全正確的。

47.本席現在作出一個暫准訟費令。劉先生必須支付提出警告人因逾期上訴許可申請及新上訴許可申請招致的所有訟費。若雙方未能就金額達成協議，則交由聆案官評核。任何一方都可以在本判決書的日期起計二十一天内以傳票提出申請更改這暫准訟費令，否則這暫准訟費令會變成一個絕對的命令。

知會備忘登記人：無律師代表，親自出庭應訊

提出警告人：由吳歐陽律師事務所轉聘張貝貝大律師代表