Yee Kwok Sang v. Yee Mo Yi and Others

HCAP 11/2017

[2026] HKCFI 148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO 11 OF 2017

________________________

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.This is a probate action concerning the estate of Mr Yee Shiu‑kan, the deceased (“the Deceased”). All the parties in this action are the children of the Deceased and the plaintiff is the youngest child of the family of the Deceased.

2.The plaintiff brought this action primarily to seek to revoke a grant of letters of administration in HCAG017144/2014 obtained by the 1^st defendant, and to seek an order that a will dated 11 July 2013 (“the Will”) be pronounced in solemn form. Finally, the plaintiff asked for the grant of probate to be issued to him in respect of the Deceased’s estate pursuant to the Will.

3.The 1^st defendant, the second child of the Deceased, has never responded to these proceedings.  Pursuant to the order of this court dated 18 September 2025, the plaintiff has caused an advertisement of notice to the 1^st defendant to be posted in a Chinese local newspaper, published on 3 November 2025, and this court is satisfied that the 1^st defendant should be deemed to have notice of this trial hearing and opted not to be present.  This court is convinced that the trial should be proceeded with in her absence.

4.As regards the remaining defendants, all of them have filed their acknowledgment of service and have indicated that they do not contest these proceedings.

5.The plaintiff himself testified and he further called one Mr Lam Tak‑cheong to give testimony in support of his claim.  Their evidence is not contradicted by any contrary evidence and the evidence causes me no concern.  There is no reason why I should not accept their evidence in the entirety.

6.On their evidence, the Deceased was married to the mother of the parties, namely Madam Chau.  Madam Chau passed away in 1996 and the Deceased passed away in 2013. The Deceased, on or about 11 July 2013, accompanied by the plaintiff went to the office of Messrs Tam & Partners to execute the Will.

7.At the office, Mr Lam attended to the Deceased.  Mr Lam, who was a legal executive of the Plaintiff’s solicitors, explained to the Deceased the contents of the Will, which was subsequently signed by the deceased.  Mr Lam confirmed that the Deceased understood and approved the content of the Will.  Mr Lam confirmed that he had drafted the Will in accordance with the instruction of the deceased.  The Deceased passed away a few months later in the same year.

8.Under the Will, the plaintiff was appointed the executor of the estate of the Deceased and the plaintiff is the beneficiary of the lion’s share of the estate, including a residential property located in Mong Kok.

9.Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the 1^st defendant applied with success for a grant of the letters of administration in 2014.  Before the grant, the 1^st defendant had never discussed with the plaintiff the administration of the estate of the Deceased.  She had never asked the plaintiff whether the Deceased had made any will.

10.Since the grant of the letters of administration, the 1^st defendant has never administered the estate and she is nowhere to be found despite numerous attempts made by the plaintiff.

11.The deceased passed away with the Will and hence he did not die intestate.  The validity of the Will is not challenged and there is no reason why the testamentary intentions of the deceased manifested in the Will should not be given effect.  The Will is a valid document and the grant of the letters of administration should not have been made. The letters of administration fall to be revoked.

12.On the other hand, the plaintiff is the executor appointed under the Will and he should be granted the probate so that he can administer the estate pursuant to the Will. I have no hesitation in pronouncing the Will in solemn form.

13.Since there is no costs application, I make no order as to costs.

Mr Joshua Ngai, instructed by Messrs Au, Thong & Tsang, for the plaintiff

The 1^st to 4^th defendants were not represented and did not appear