Ling Meng Chu, Pearl v. U Po Chu and Others

HCCA 3642/2025

[2026] HKCFI 4022

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CAVEAT NO. 3642 OF 2025

____________________

____________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

A. INTRODUCTION

1.There are 2 summonses before me taken out by the 1^st Respondent (“Madam U”):

(1) Stay Summons - for a case management stay of a Passing Over Summons (defined below) taken out by the Applicant (“Ms Ling”); and

(2) Evidence Summons - For leave to file a further affidavit of her solicitor, Leung Wai Lim (“Leung-2^nd”), concerning Madam U’s administration of the estate of Lim Po Yen (“Mr Lim”) since she has taken up the position as an executrix.

2.After hearing arguments, I reserved judgment on the Stay Summons but dismissed the Evidence Summons with reasons reserved.

B. BACKGROUND

3.Mr Lim passed away on 18 February 2005. He made 2 wills in his lifetime, one in 1973 with a codicil in 1974 (collectively the “1973 Will”) and a will in 2004 (“the 2004 Will”).

4.Under the 2004 Will, he left the vast majority of his assts to his “second family” (in particular, Madam U, her son Mr Lam Kin Ngok Peter (“Peter Lam”), and her adopted son Lam Kin Hong Matthew), as well as Lam Kin Ming (the son of the “first family”). The “third family” including Madam Koo Siu Ying (“Madam Koo”), and her children Ms Pearl Ling (“Ms Ling”) and Mr Ling Wai Kwan Eric, were disinherited entirely.

5.The executor under the 2004 Will, commenced a probate action against Madam Koo and Ms Ling (HCAP 4/2011, “Probate Action”), which was carried on by substitute executrices. It was funded by Peter Lam. The trial lasted for 23 days in 2024 (“the Trial”).

6.The 2004 Will was executed in the presence of various persons, including doctors, Madam U (whose witness statement was admitted by way of hearsay because she was said to be medically unfit to attend trial) and Peter Lam.

7.Up until the Trial, the substitute executrices (“the Plaintiffs”) had refused to call the doctors present at the execution of the 2004 Will to testify. Madam U and Peter Lam maintained that Mr Lim had testamentary capacity and approved the will. It was only upon hearing Wilson Chan J’s indications during oral opening at the Trial that the Plaintiffs subpoenaed 2 doctors present at the execution, including Dr Chan Pui Hong (“Dr Chan”), to give evidence.

8.The Judgment in the Probate Action [2025] HKCFI 1401 was handed down on 11 April 2025, pronouncing the 1973 Will in solemn form. Wilson Chan J accepted the evidence of Dr Chan, an independent witness. The learned judge held that the 2004 Will was invalid for lack of testamentary capacity due to Mr Lim’s severe dementia and his lack of knowledge and approval. He found, amongst others (at §§109, 184(1), 185(3), 188 and §208(4)), that:

(1) Madam U’s hearsay evidence was untrue, and she was criticized for failing to mention anything about Mr Lim’s dementia or Alzhemer as it was inconceivable that she did not know of it;

(2) All of the Plaintiffs’ main witnesses (including Peter Lam) could not have been telling the truth regarding the occasion of execution of the 2004 Will;

(3) Their “refusal to tell the truth about Mr Lim’s mental condition and what happened during and after the mental examination” amounted to a “deliberate cover-up”;

(4) The 2004 Will was in truth merely the product of negotiations and jockeying between the beneficiaries, and that Mr Lim did not know or approve of its contents.

9.The Plaintiffs appeal against the Judgment (CACV 275/2025), on the grounds of judicial copying, inadequacy of reasons, and against substantive factual findings on testamentary capacity, knowledge and approval.

10.On 29 January 2026, the Plaintiffs applied for admission of new evidence and bifurcation of the Appeal so that the ground of judicial copying would be heard first (collectively “the Interlocutory Applications”). Ms Ling and Madam Koo oppose the same.

11.In around June 2025 Madam U, as sole Executrix of the 1973 Will, quickly obtained grant of probate. She refused to disclose her application papers despite request from Ms Ling’s solicitors.

12.On 4 June 2025, Ms Ling entered a caveat in these proceedings.

13.On 9 July 2025, Ms Ling, a beneficiary under the 1973 Will but not under the 2004 Will, issued the Passing Over Summons, seeking to pass over Madam U as executrix and to appoint professional administrators in her place. Her grounds are that:

(1) Madam U is of very old age (101 years old) and, on her own evidence, has serious health conditions. She could not even attend the Trial to give oral evidence. She cannot possibly administer this complex Estate.

(2) Madam U has exhibited sustained, deep-seated hostility to the third family; and was found to have been closely involved in procuring the preparation and execution of the 2004 Will.

(3) The size and complexity of the Estate cries out for the appointment of a professional administrator. There is a clear need for investigation into the affairs of the Estate as well as for the assets to be collected in and protected because nobody is administering the Estate at this moment. The matters which need to be investigated include, in particular, the purported transfer of Mr Lim’s shares in Lai Sun Garment (International) Limited and in Wisdoman to Madam U and Peter Lam, on 8 and 14 December 2004 when Mr Lim plainly lacked mental capacity to do so.

14.The Passing Over Summons is opposed by Madam U and various beneficiaries of the estate. Madam U issued the Stay Summons on 20 October 2025 for a case management stay of the Passing Over Summons pending the Appeal. Her main ground for the stay is that the Appeal may entirely dispose of the Passing Over Summons, as a result of which Madam U will automatically cease to be executrix and Ms Ling will have no locus to pursue the Passing Over Summons at all.

15.Meanwhile, Madam U has made various attempts to try and prevent the Passing Over Summons from being heard but she failed, including applications (a) to adjourn the Passing Over Summons sine die pending determination of the Appeal; (b) to extend time to file her affirmation in opposition to the Passing Over Summons to “14 days after the final determination of the intended case management summons to be taken out by [her]”; and (c) to direct that the substantive hearing of the Passing Over Summons should not to be fixed before the final determination of the Appeal.

16.Only Madam U participated at this hearing. The other Respondents (being beneficiaries of the estate), support the stay.

17.At this hearing, Mr Chong, counsel for Madam U, advances the following grounds in support of the stay:

(1) The Appeal may be entirely dispositive of the Passing-Over Summons. If the Appeal “succeeds” and the 2004 Will is pronounced in solemn form, the 1973 Will will no longer govern the Estate. Madam U will automatically cease to be executrix and Ms Ling will have no locus to pursue the Passing-Over Summons at all. (“Ground 1”)

(2) The Passing Over Summons is entirely premised on the Judgment remaining valid. Proceeding now creates a real risk of practical prejudice and confusion. If professional administrators are appointed on the footing of the 1973 Will, and the Appeal later upholds the 2004 Will, they will have acted throughout on a false premise, with unnecessary fees, misdirected acts of administration and potentially wrongful distributions that may need to be unravelled. (“Ground 2”)

(3) Certain beneficiaries under the 1973 Will, such as Ms Ling herself, are not beneficiaries (or have materially different entitlements) under the 2004 Will. If a professional administrator is appointed as per Ms Ling’s request and distributions to beneficiaries of the 1973 Will are made, it would give rise to complex recovery actions, potential clawback claims, further litigation, significant prejudice to the true beneficiaries under the 2004 Will, and serious disruption to the proper administration of the Estate. (“Ground 3”)

(4) The Passing-Over Summons is factually and procedurally heavy. Its voluminous affirmation raises wide-ranging and contentious allegations. Requiring the parties and the Court to engage in that Summons now, when the Appeal may render it academic, would be an illogical and wasteful use of resources. (“Ground 4”)

(5) A temporary stay causes no irreparable prejudice to Ms Ling. If the Appeal is dismissed, she remains fully entitled to press the Passing-Over Summons, whereas if the Appeal is allowed, the stay will have avoided substantial and wholly unnecessary expense and duplication. (“Ground 5”)

(6) The strain on limited court resources would be unjustifiable. Listing and reading-in for a full passing-over hearing would occupy judicial time and resources that will have been wasted if the Appeal succeeds, to the detriment not only of the parties but also of other court users waiting for scarce hearing time. (“Ground 6”)

(7) There is support from the majority of beneficiaries (“Ground 7”).

I will deal with the Evidence Summons first.

C. EVIDENCE SUMMONS

18.The only affidavit that was filed on behalf of Madam U in support of the Stay Summons was by the same Mr Leung Wai Lim (“Leung-1^st”). It was not a proper procedure as the contents of Leung-1^st should have been deposed to by Madam U herself.

19.Leung-2^nd purported to state that Madam U has taken steps as executrix to collect in and preserve the assets of the Estate, similar to those taken by the executors under the 2004 Will until the Judgment was handed down; but Madam U had not taken steps to distribute the Estate. These were said to answer an allegation in the written submission of Ms Queenie Lau SC leading Mr Keith Yeung Chan, counsel for Ms Ling, that there was nobody administering the Estate.

20.Leung-2^nd committed the same procedural impropriety as with Leung-1^st. In Leung-2^nd, the deponent did not even state his source of information.

21.In any case, as shall be seen, whether or not the Estate is being administered is not relevant to the Stay Summons. Rather, whether the Estate should be administered pending the Appeal and by whom are the focus of the Passing Over Summons, and hence relevant to the Stay Summons.

22.Accordingly, on the grounds of lateness, ambush and irrelevance, I dismissed the Evidence Summons.

D. LEGAL PRINCIPLES ON STAY

23.Section 16(3) of the High Court Ordinance, Cap 4, gives the Court a discretion to stay proceedings, including a stay for the purpose of case management under Order 1B, rule 1(2)(e) of Rules of the High Court.

24.K Yeung J (as he then was) has summarized the legal principles for granting a stay in China Shanshui Cement Group Ltd v Tianrui (International) Holding Co Ltd [2020] HKCFI 3043 at §§75-77:

(1) When considering whether to grant a stay, the Court must consider what would serve the ends of justice between the parties to the litigation and the administration of justice generally;

(2) A stay should not cause injustice to the plaintiff;

(3) The applicant for stay must satisfy the court that continuing the proceedings would be oppressive or vexatious to him or an abuse of process and unjust;

(4) Where a plaintiff commences proceedings as of right, he should not be deprived of the right to continue those proceedings in the absence of “very good reasons to the contrary”;

(5) When there is no identity of parties between two sets of proceedings, it may not be desirable or even possible to stay one set pending resolution of the other. The reason is that the outcome of one is not binding upon the parties in the other. There will be risk of inconsistent findings. That however is inevitable.

(6) A stay on case management grounds will only be granted in “rare and compelling circumstances”.

25.In exercising its discretion, the Court should balance (a) the possible wastage of the Court's time and resources and the parties' time and costs (if there is no stay); (b) against the possible delay to the proceedings for a short period of time (if there is a stay). See Poon Ka Man Jason v Cheng Wai Tao [2018] HKCFI 771 at §38, Au-Yeung J. See also Re Chime Corporation Ltd (“Re Chime (CFI)”) (HCMP 4146/2001, 8 March 2005, Kwan J (as Kwan VP then was) at §14.

D. RIGHT TO ISSUE AND PURSUE THE PASSING OVER SUMMONS

26.There can be no dispute that Ms Ling has issued the Passing Over Summons as of right, as a beneficiary under the 1973 Will.

27.Ms Ling’s has provided evidence of Madam U’s extensive involvement in orchestrating execution of the 2004 Will, her refusal to tell the truth about Mr Lim’s mental condition or what happened at the time of execution of the 2004 Will as found by the Judgment, her clear antipathy to the third family and dealing with assets which ought to belong to the Estate (such as shares in Honlink Development Limited which holds a property called Golden Era Plaza). All of these may call into question Madam U’s impartiality and fairness in the administration of the Estate. Therefore, even if Madam U is administering the Estate now, that is not relevant. What the Passing Over Summons wants to resolve is whether she should remain as executrix in the light of such background.

28.It may be true that Madam U was unable to attend the Trial for health reasons but that does not necessarily mean she cannot handle the administration of the Estate. Evidence is yet to be filed by Madam U. However, the undeniable fact is that she is aged 101 already. The Estate is clearly huge and complex. The propriety of appointing professional administrators aligned with the wish of Mr Lim himself, who appointed professional executors under the 2004 Will.

29.The alleged transfer of Mr Lim’s shares, if true, were to Madam U and Peter Lam, people against whom the Judgment had made negative comments against; and the transfers occurred at a time when Mr Lim was found by the Judgment to have lacked mental capacity for those transactions.

30.In sum, Ms Ling does have an arguable case under the Passing Over Summons which should be heard. The burden is on Madam U to satisfy the tests in Chan Shanshui v Tianrui in order to obtain a stay.

E. GROUNDS FOR STAY

Ground 1 – the Appeal being dispositive of the Passing Over Summons

31.Ground 1 permeates the first 5 Grounds. Mr Chong relies heavily on Re Chime Corporate Ltd (2004) 7 HKCFAR 546 (“Re Chime CFA”) wherein Lord Scott NPJ emphasized (at §§55, 66-68), obiter, the importance of sensible case management where parallel proceedings may overlap and where one set of proceedings may render another pointless.

32.In Re Chime CFI, Kwan J APPLIED Re Chime CFA and granted a stay of 8 set of proceedings pending determination of the probate proceedings, even though the parties were not identical in all proceedings; the issues were not completely overlapping; and some proceedings had been ongoing for a considerable time. The learned Judge held that the common factors pointed towards a stay, because;

(1) If the probate proceedings were determined in a particular way, all the stayed proceedings would be “pointless and academic”;

(2) Substantial work, time and resources would otherwise be devoted to complex litigation;

(3) There were common threads of undesirable results if litigation proceeded: waste of time, expenses and judicial resources.

33.Mr Chong submits that the Appeal will be entirely dispositive of and not merely overlapping the Passing Over Summons. It is even stronger than Re Chime. The Appeal directly challenges the validity of the very will on which Ms Ling relies. The costs and court resources at stake are very substantial. To allow the Passing Over Summons to proceed when there is no urgent need to do so would be “topsy-turvy” because it litigates the administration of the Estate before the entitlement to administer it is finally resolved. Firm case management plainly requires a stay of the Passing Over Summons pending the Appeal.

34.Mr Chong also relies on Poon Ka Man Jason v Cheng Wai Tao [2018] HKCFI HCP 771/2023 in which the Court granted a stay.

35.The important obiter dicta in Re Chime CFA should of course be borne in mind, but how the principles on stay are to be applied are fact sensitive. The facts of the 2 cases cited by Mr Chong are distinguishable from the present case and do not assist the Court:

(1) Re Chime concerned amendment to an unfair prejudice petition and not the question of stay. The real dispute between the petitioners and Nina Wang was about property rights in the estate of Teddy Wang rather than about management of Chime’s affairs. The petitioners were merely administrators pendente lite with no interest in the estate. If Nina Wang were held to be the beneficiary of the estate in the probate proceedings, the allegation that she was concerned to advance her own interest at the expense of the estate would become meaningless. If the petition were not stayed, the investigation that would be necessary would have a horrendous effect on the day-to-day management of Chime and the Chinachem group and highly damaging to their commercial and financial health. On the other hand, the Passing Over Summons itself does not involve a dispute over property rights but how the Estate should be managed whilst the Appeal goes on.

(2) Poon Ka Man is distinguishable on the facts in that it involved the need to consider a sanctioned payment which may be dispositive of a trial on quantum that might incur substantial costs on discovery, accounting and an assessor. The Court stayed the trial for considering the sanctioned payment.

36.Next, to say that the Appeal is dispositive of the Passing Over Summons is an oversimplistic statement. One can reasonably expect at least the following possible outcomes in the appeal:

(1) Appeal dismissed, upholding the 1973 Will (“1^st Outcome”);

(2) Appeal allowed, upholding the 2004 Will (“2^nd Outcome”); or

(3) Appeal allowed, remitting the case for a re-trial (“3^rd Outcome”);

(4) Further appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“4^th Outcome”).

37.The 3^rd and 4^th Outcomes plainly would not end the probate litigation. Even for the 1^st Outcome, Madam U may not, like now, willingly surrender her position as executrix to professional administrators. Accordingly, the Appeal is not “dispositive” of the Passing Over Summons.

38.Ground 1 is not established.

Grounds 2 and 3 – real risk of practical prejudice and confusion giving rise to complex recovery action and further litigation

39.Firstly, Mr Chong submits that the Passing Over Summons is entirely premised on the Judgment remaining valid. Without disrespect, this is a wrong characterization of Ms Ling’s case. The Passing Over Summons does not depend on which will is eventually pronounced in the Appeal but seeks to hold the rein in the meantime.

40.The Interlocutory Applications await disposal on paper, and there is no indication from the Court of Appeal as to when its decision is to be given. No date for hearing of the Appeal has been fixed. Whatever the outcome of the Appeal, one can expect an appeal of this magnitude to take some time. If the 3^rd and 4^th Outcomes were to occur, it may take yet another few years for the re-trial to complete. Accordingly, any stay that Madam U now asks for probably has to be measured in years.

41.The Passing Over Summons purports to ensure that there is proper administration of the Estate by a proper person in those years so that beneficiaries under either Will would not be prejudiced.

42.The concerns raised by Mr Chong about professional administrators acting on the false premise of the 1973 Will, or making wrong distributions when the Appeal later upholds the 2004 Will, equally applies to Madam U whilst she is in office as an executrix.

43.The concerns as to potential misuse of powers by the independent administrators and their fees can be addressed by the terms of appointment and costs against Ms Ling, instead of being used to ban the Passing Over Summons from proceeding.

44.Even if the Appeal were successful (whatever that means to Madam U), any work done by the professional administrators would not necessarily be rendered pointless. The professional administrators could remain in office or pass on the fruits of his investigation to the proper executor or administrator under the relevant Will.

45.Grounds 2 and 3 are not established.

Ground 4 – Passing Over Summons factually and procedurally heavy

46.Ground 4 falls with Ground 1. Further, the fact that an application is procedurally heavy is not a reason to prevent it from being pursued. There is always a duty on legal representatives to take active consideration of procedural economy and proportionate costs before filing hefty affirmations and medical evidence to contest the Passing Over Summons. Ground 4 is not established.

Ground 5 – temporary stay causes no irreparable prejudice

47.Mr Chong submits that there is no deprivation of Ms Ling of the “fruits” of the Judgment as this is not an application for a stay of execution. Madam U was not a party to the Probate Action and the Appeal is not brought by her personally. This is a case management stay of a new and separate application. Madam U is not employing delaying tactics. She is simply seeking to manage these proceedings in the most logical, fair and cost-effective manner in the interest of all parties concerned.

48.I am unable to agree. Ms Ling and the third family have been deprived of the fruits of the administration for 20 years and the fruits of the Judgment for 15 months. It does not follow that further delay is not prejudicial, especially since Madam Koo is also of an advanced age. Madam U herself saw fit to obtain a grant of probate despite the risk of the 1973 Will being overtimed on appeal.

49.Ground 5 is unsustainable.

Ground 6 – unjustified strain on court resources

50.It is proper deployment of court resources to deal with the Passing Over Summons application that is properly supported by evidence and reason. Ground 6 is not established.

Ground 7 – support of the majority of beneficiaries

51.The majority of the beneficiaries under the 1973 Will (comprising 11.5 out of 12 shares) support the stay. They include those from the first and second family. In any case, the first family generally stands on the same front as Madam U including in the Probate Action and it was held in the Judgment that the 2004 Will was negotiated among Madam U, Lam Kin Ming, Peter Lam and Matthew Lam without consulting Mr Lim.

52.In my view, the majority’s view in no way binds the Court, especially in view of the allegations of lack of impartiality against Madam U. It is the ends of justice among all beneficiaries and the administration of justice that are relevant. Ground 7 carries little weight.

E. DISPOSITION

53.Taking all circumstances into account, Madam U has failed to meet the tests in China Shanshui v Tianrui. As there are no rare and compelling circumstances for a stay, I therefore dismiss the Stay Summons.

54.Costs should follow the event. On a nisi basis, costs of both Summonses shall be paid by Madam U to Ms Ling forthwith. The Stay Summons is itself not complex. Mr Leung filed one affirmation only. Ms Ling did not file any affirmation but relies on her affirmation filed for the Passing Over Summons. However, the Stay Summons does carry importance for Ms Ling as it may bar her Passing Over Summons from progressing. I thus grant certificates for 2 counsel.

55.On quantum of costs, I summarily assess costs of both Summonses on a nisi basis in the sum of $700,000.

G. WAY FORWARD

56.Master Hui has directed Madam U to file and serve her evidence in opposition to the Passing Over Summons with 28 days from 22 October 2025. That time is long overdue and an extension is an indulgence to Madam U. I direct as follows as regards the Passing Over Summons:

(1) There be extension of 28 days for all the Respondents to file and serve their affirmations in opposition to the Passing Over Summons.

(2) Ms Ling has leave to file and serve her affirmation in reply within 28 days thereafter.

(3) No further affirmations shall be filed without leave.

(4) Time is to run during the vacation.

57.I thank counsel for their assistance.

Ms Queenie Lau SC and Mr Keith Chan, instructed by Holman Fenwick Willian, for the Applicant

Mr Patrick Chong, instructed by Howse Williams, for the 1^st Respondent

Attendance of other Respondents was excused