Leung May Chow Karen and Another v. Leung May Chun Alison Aliance

Case No.HCAP 7/1993

Court

High Court CFI

Date04 Nov 1997

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAP000007/1993

1993, No. P7

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HONG KONG

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE JURISDICTION

-----------------

IN THE ESTATE of LEUNG SHUET FUN（梁雪芬）also known as LEUNG SUET FUN（梁雪芬）also known as LEUNG SUET FAN（梁雪芬）also known as LEUNG SHUI FAN（梁雪芬）also known as LEONG SIT FAN（梁雪芬）, Deceased

-----------------

BETWEEN
	LEUNG MAY CHOW, KAREN（梁美秋）also known as LEUNG MEE CHAU（梁美秋）formerly known as SHAM MAY CHOW（岑美秋）	1^st Plaintiff
	YEUNG MEI CHUNG（楊美中）and AU YOK CHUN（歐玉珍）, the Administratrices of the estate of SHUM WAN KEUNG（岑運強）, Deceased	2^nd Plaintiff
	AND
	LEUNG MAY CHUN, ALISON ALIANCE（梁美春）also known as LEUNG MEE CHUN（梁美春）formerly known as SHAM MAY CHUN（岑美春）	Defendant

-----------------

Coram: Hon Yam J. in Court

Date of hearing: 4 November 1997

Date of judgment: 4 November 1997

-----------------

JUDGMENT

-----------------

1. This is a probate action commenced by the two Plaintiffs against the Defendant for the pronouncement in the form of the Will of the Deceased dated 25^th April 1961 which was witnessed by two solicitors. Under this Will, the three children of the Deceased, including the Defendant, would be entitled to share the properties of the Deceased equally.

2. A writ dated 16^th September 1993 was taken out because the Defendant entered a caveat on 1^st September 1993 and put forward a Chinese Will dated 15^th March 1992.

3. The Defendant was however convicted of forgery before H.H. Lugar-Mawson on 18^th November 1994, i.e. the forgery of that Chinese Will in 1992. Her appeal against conviction to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 25^th August 1995. Consequently on the application of the Plaintiffs, Master Woolley ordered on 10^th December 1996 that the Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim be struckout. Directions were given that the filing of an affidavit of scripts by either party be dispensed with and the action be set down for trial on affidavit evidence.

4. The Plaintiffs applied now under O.76, r.11(2) that:

	(i)	The Defendant's case be dismissed and the Court to pronounce against the validity of the Chinese document dated 15^th March 1992 as a testamentary document.
	(ii)	The Court to pronounce in solemn form for the true last Will of the Deceased dated 25^th April 1961.
	(iii)	The Court do grant to the 1^st Plaintiff and Yeung Mei Chung of the 2^nd Plaintiffs, Letters of Administration with the true last Will of the Deceased annexed of the estate and effects of the Deceased.
	(iv)	All the costs of this action be to the Plaintiffs.

5. The Defendant applied for an adjournment to-day for obtaining legal advice from her legal advisor. Apart from that, she could not give me another reason for the adjournment. Apparently, she has a lot of grievances against the Plaintiffs, but that possibly are personal grievances and have nothing to do with the present matter before me. I cannot see any purpose of granting the adjournment to the Defendant. The Defence and Counterclaim having been struckout by Master Woolley, I cannot see any grounds of opposition to the Plaintiffs' application to-day either.

6. Accordingly, I order in terms of the application of the Plaintiffs by summons dated 1^st September 1997.

	(D. Yam)
	Judge of the Court of First Instance
	High Court

Representation:

Mr Kong Sau Fung, inst'd by M/s Lau, Wong & Chan, for Plaintiffs

Defendant in person