Sun Er-jo v. Lo Ching and Others
Read the full judgment text of HCA 3283/1995 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment.
1. The Plaintiff Madam Sun Er-jo (Madam Sun) took out 3 writs of summons against her three children respectively between April and August 1995.
|
[English Translation – 英譯本] Case No. 3283/95 IN THE HIGH COURT OF Hong Kong civil Action Between
____________________ Coram: The Hon Mr. Justice Yeung in Court Date of Hearing: 4th to 7th December, 1995 Date of delivery of judgment: 13th December 1995 ____________________ J U D G M E N T ____________________ Introduction 1. The Plaintiff Madam Sun Er-jo (Madam Sun) took out 3 writs of summons against her three children respectively between April and August 1995. 2. The first writ of summons was taken out against Lo Kun, the youngest child (son), HC Action No. A3283/95 referred. 3. The second writ of summons was taken out against Lo Ching, the 3rd child (daughter), HC Action No. A3770/95 referred. 4. The third writ of summons was taken out against Lo Ching (D1), Lo Kin, the 4th child (son) (D2), and Lo Kun (D3), HC Action No. A7746/95 referred. The nature of the 3 cases are similar to each other or interrelated, and some of the parties involved in these cases are identical. In order to facilitate the running of the cases and with no objections from the parties, the Court ordered to have the 3 cases consolidated and be heard together. Background 5. The Plaintiff Madam Sun is now 90 years of age. She graduated from Peking University, School of Medicine, in 1931. She married Lo Hung Fei in 1932 and gave birth to her eldest son, Lo Wo, in the same year. Afterwards, she gave birth to her 2nd child Lo Ping (son), 3rd child Lo Ching (daughter), 4th child Lo kin (son) and youngest child Lo Kun (son) in 1938, 1940, 1942, and 1945 respectively. During the War, Madam Sun and Lo Hung Fei, taking their five children with them, ran for the dogs of war. Lo Hung Fei worked for the Nationalist Party Government. In 1945, after the War, he was posted to Taiwan as a taking officer. Madam Sun took her children and went with him as well. When they were in Taiwan, Lo Hung Fei had an affair with a Japanese girl. After the incident of February 28th, Lo Hung Fei went back to Shanghai. Madam Sun went back to Shanghai as well and settled there in 1947. 6. After being deserted by Lo Hung Fei, Madam Sun joined the medical service and brought up the five children on her own. She worked until 1961 and when she retired, she only got a pension at RMB $70 per month. Lo Hung Fei lived in Shanghai until 1962. Then he moved to Hong Kong. Subsequently he worked and lived in Philippines, Tokyo and Taiwan, where he established a factory. 7. Madam Sun’s 2nd child, Lo Ping, came to Hong Kong in 1976. Madam Sun and the rest of her sons and daughter also came to Hong Kong in 1979 and 1980 respectively. When she first arrived at Hong Kong, she lived with Lo Ping. However, in 1980, she was at odds with Lo Ping and so she lived apart. 8. Between 1980 and 1984, Madam Sun was commonly supported by her other sons and daughter. She also got some means by helping her youngest son, Lo Kun, to look after his children. 9. In 1984, Lo Hung Fei came to Hong Kong from Japan. At that time, Madam Sun had already reconciled with Lo Ping and lived with him. Lo Hung Fei gave Madam Sun several ten thousand US dollars to provide for her old age. 10. Apart from the money given by Lo Hung Fei, Madam Sun got a profit of about a hundred thousand odd HK dollars from property transactions between 1985 and 1990. Plus other savings, she had assets of about several hundred thousand dollars in total. Around 1989 and 1990, she let Lo Kun keep all her money for her, and each month Lo Kun would take out an appropriate sum of money for her living and other expenditure. In late 1990, Lo Ping left Hong Kong and settled in Taiwan. Therefore, the brothers and sister discussed and agreed to buy the premises at No. 19A, Wing Lung Street, G/F, Ping Chau (the Property) to house Madam Sun. The price of the Property was about $250 000. Lo Kun took out $100 000 from Madam Sun’s money in his custody as part of the payment, and Lo Kin made up the balance which was $150 000. The title of the property was registered under Lo Ching. 11. In late 1994, Madam Sun demanded Lo Kun to return to her all her money in his custody and claimed her interest in the Property against Lo Ching, but she was refused. Therefore, she applied to the Court and took out 3 writs of summons against Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun. The issues in this case 12. As the parties are not legally represented, and the pleadings are quite brief and ambiguous, I have to rely on a number of statements submitted to the Court by both parties and the information gathered from the enquiries made of the parties at the beginning of the trial to decide their issues. 13. The nature of the claims made by Madam Sun against Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun are as follows :
14. Later on, Madam Sun wanted to take charge of her own money and asked Lo Kun to return all the money to her, but her demand was unreasonably rejected by Lo Kun. 15. It was not until Madam Sun took out the writ of summons against Lo Kun that Lo Kun finally paid back to her $211 875.61 on 29.5.1995. 16. Nevertheless, Madam Sun alleged that the money Lo Kun got from her between 1989 and 1990 amounted to $568 281.87. Yet the money Lo Kun gave her for her living expenses and his other disbursement from 1990 to 1995 only totalled $549 155.61. Therefore, Madam Sun claims against Lo Kun for the difference of $19 086.14. 17. Madam Sun also alleged that Lo Kun neither added up nor paid her any interest in respect of the sum for that period. Therefore, she now claims for reasonable interest accrued thereon as well.
Defence 18. The defence given by Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun is quite simple:
19. Lo Kun stated that after Madam Sun lodged the proceedings, he returned to her on 19.5.1995 the balance of $211 875.61 as in the trust account.
20. As to the allegations made by Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun against Lo Ping, Madam Sun has strongly denied. She says that she is clear minded, mentally sound and has capacity, and that she is absolutely able to look after her own interests. She insists on taking charge of her own property and wishes to finish the remaining journey of her life with dignity. Evidence 21. Madam Sun in her evidence admitted that she did not have independent recollection or record as to the amount of money she trusted with Lo Kun, either did she have any documental proof for it. She only relied on the record of entries submitted by Lo Kun (exhibit P1) to support her saying that she had given a total of $570 000 to Lo Kun. As to the record of entries relating to the expenditures, Madam Sun generally agreed to it. However, she had reservation for being the sole person to shoulder the whole sum of the agent commission and legal fees for the Property. As to the decoration fees, the administration fees of $4950 for renting the open area around the house and the rental, Madam Sun said that it was Lo Ching’s idea to rent the the open area from the Government, to which she disagreed. 22. Madam Sun produced to the Court the passbook for her personal account (exh. P2), which shows the amount Lo Kun had allocated for her living expenses each month. She said that Lo Kun would also give her an extra $100 as a contribution to her maintenance. 23. Madam Sun averred that she had a saving of about RMB $10 000 in Shanghai before she came to Hong Kong in 1979. As it was prohibited to bring the currency out of the country, Madam Sun left the money to Lo Kun. However, Lo Kun and Lo Kin spent up all the money before they came to Hong Kong. 24. Madam Sun did not pursue them for the money when Lo Kun and Lo Kin came to Hong Kong. She said that on her first arrival, she was supported by Lo Ping, her 2nd son. Then, she lived apart from Lo Ping, and her living was supported by the rest of her sons and daughter, who contributed $300 per month each. 25. Madam Sun clearly stated that it was her wish to sell the Property so that she could get back her share of proceeds, by that she could rent a house or employ a Filipino maid to attend her. 26. Madam Sun has no dispute that Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun had once employed a maid for her. However, when Lo Ping returned to Hong Kong, the maid ran away. As to what Lo Ching said that Madam Sun only left behind about RMB $4 000 in Shanghai, Madam Sun strongly disagreed. 27. Madam Sun challenged the contents of exhibit P3, a document written by Lo Ping. That document shows that Madam Sun had a total of HK$430 000 in her assets as at the end of 1989. Madam Sun reiterated that exhibit P1 already stood as a proof that the amount she trusted with Lo Kun was HK$570 000. She said that Lo Kun should have bank documents that could confirm it. 28. In response to Lo Kun’s saying that he had allocated about $6 000 for buying 2 air-conditioners, $9 600 for replacing aluminium window frames for the house, and $5 000 odd for buying a microwave oven apart from the expenditures as listed in exhibit P1, Madam Sun argued that these items were given to her by Lo Kin as gifts. 29. Lo Ping said that it was he who applied for his mother to settle in Hong Kong, but since they were at odds afterwards, they lived apart and had no contact with each other from 1980 to 1984. In 1986, he bought the house at No.27, Wing Lung Street, Ping Chau. In 1987, Madam Sun sold her flat at Ka Fai Court, Western, and moved to Ping Chau to live with him. At that time, he worked as a freelance writer for various renown newspapers and magazines in Taiwan. He had properties and savings in both Taiwan and Vancouver. In addition to the income he got from writing, he received rentals and interests each month. His assets were more than enough for his whole life. What he meant is that there is absolutely no motive nor ground for him to appropriate his mother’s property. He said that he got himself involved in this matter only because of his mother, who lacks proper care in Hong Kong and is lonely and helpless. He said that due to the nature of his job, it would be dangerous for him to stay in Hong Kong. By then he had no concrete plan for his future, but he wished that his mother could move between Taiwan and Hong Kong and live at either place leading an easy life in her old age. 30. Lo Ping said that he did not have knowledge on how much assets his mother had. As to the allegation made by his siblings that his mother’s assets decreased at quick speed during the year he lived with her, Lo Ping said that it had nothing to do with him. For most of the time during that period, he was staying at Taiwan and he was very busy in his work. He said that her mother’s money was all spent by herself. He agreed that he had dispute with his siblings on this matter. In order to explain away the allegation, he listed out the expenditures for his mother in exhibit P3 afterwards. 31. Lo Ping said that the figure shown in P3 was accurate, that his mother had a total of HK$430 000 odd in her assets as at the end of 1989. However, as far as he knew, his mother had other savings, but he had no knowledge of the details. 32. Lo Ping denied that it was with his consent for Lo Kun to manage his mother’s assets. Neither did he say that he only trusted Lo Kun amongst his siblings. 33. Lo Kun, the youngest son in the family, said in his evidence that he had clear records listing out every entry of income and expenditure for his mother’s assets, and that is in P1. He said that prior to late 1989, Madam Sun managed her assets by herself, and part of the cash was deposited with Kwangtung Provincial Bank under the joint account of Madam Sun, Lo Ping and Lo Kin. At the end of 1989, the brothers found that their mother’s savings were reduced at quick speed during the period she was living with Lo Ping. In order to solve the matter, the brothers and sister held a family meeting, in that Lo Ping denied any involvement in the reduced savings, and they had an argument for it. Finally, they came to an agreement that Lo Kun would take charge of their mother’s assets. According to Lo Kun, Lo Ping did say that he did not trust his siblings, except Lo Kun. 34. It is Lo Kun’s evidence that his mother’s assets were gradually transferred to him, including the approximate US$15 000, HK$20 000, $230 000 in the joint account with the Kwangtung Provincial Bank, and cash $60 000, totally $433 000 odd, of which about $100 000 was used to cover the partial payment for the Property and for other relevant expenditures. He then set aside several ten thousand dollars as maintenance for his mother, and changed the rest currency to GBP. Each month he would allocate several thousand dollars for his mother’s living expenses, and if there were any other expenditures, he would take out money from the trust fund to cover the payment. 35. Lo Kun also said that between 1990 and May 1995, he had drawn out about $200 000 from the trust fund on his mother. With the $210 000 odd he returned to her on 29.5.1995 and the $100 000 odd for buying the Property, totally he had returned almost $540 000 to his mother, $100 000 more than that his mother had trusted with him, and the $100 000 was the interest income. Therefore, his mother’s allegation that he still owes her about $100 00 with interest thereon is totally groundless. He also denied that he had dipped into the trust fund and gave money to Lo Ching and Lo Kin for them to buy properties. 36. Lo Kun said that since there were too many bank statements for the trust account, most of them had been disposed of. He said that they had sought their mother’s consent before they bought the Property and made Lo Ching the registered owner. As to the relevant formalities, it was wholly dealt with by Lo Ching. 37. Lo Ching also confirmed that she had a discussion with Lo Kin, Lo Kun and her mother and got her mother’s approval before she was made the registered owner of the Property. Such arrangement was to protect her mother’s interests to avoid trouble. She was wholly responsible for dealing with the legal procedures in the transaction only because she wanted to save her mother from the trouble of travelling. 38. As to her mother’s claim of ownership of the Property in February 1995, Lo Ching initially had reservation about it, being afraid that it might not be in her mother’s interests. However, she did not insist and was willing to follow her mother’s instructions when this proceedings began. Lo Ching agreed that when she dealt with the legal procedures in the property transaction, her mother was not present. She also confirmed that the rest payment of $150 000 for the Property came from Lo Kin. As to the premises at No. 16, Wing Lung Street, G/F, she bought it for her own residence. She paid the deposit of $70 000 from her own savings, and the rest payment was made up by a bank loan. 39. Lo Kin’s evidence corroborated with the evidence of Lo Kun and Lo Ching in relation to how they handled their mother’s assets and how they bought the Property. Lo Kin even pointed out that he had asked Lo Ping to contribute in buying the property, but Lo Ping refused. Lo Kin said that the $150 000 was his own money and it had nothing to do with his mother’s savings. 40. Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun have clearly stated that they have no intention at all to appropriate their mother’s assets. Neither are there such facts to support the allegations. What they have done is to secure their mother’s living in her old age, to fulfil their duties to their mother. Analysis of the law and the facts 1) As to the maintenance for which Madam Sun claims against Lo Kun, I have already pointed out that it is a moral duty for parents to rear their children, and sons and daughters to provide for their parents. Generally, it does not form the basis for any claim because the arrangement of the family affairs between parents and sons and daughters normally is not subject to a claim at court. 41. In Balfour v Balfour [1919] 2 K.B. 571, the wife claimed against her husband for a monthly allowance of GBP 30 but failed, and one of the reasons is that family arrangement would not generally amount to a valid contract under which claim can be made. As Judge Atkin L.J. says: 42. “Those agreements, do not result in contracts at all …… They are not contracts……because the parties did not intend that they should be attended by legal consequences.” 43. Madam Sun brought up Lo Kun and continued supporting him financially even he had attained the age as an adult. Madam Sun did it voluntarily out of her deep mother love, and at that time she did not expect Lo Kun to repay her. Neither did Lo Kun have such a promise. Both parties have never made any agreement or ever had any intention to build up any legal relationship in this regard. Therefore, the claim for maintenance cannot be brought to the court. 44. I have to make it clear that arrangements or agreements on the family affairs between parents and children, wife and husband, or brothers and sisters have no binding effect in law, unless they have specifically stated in advance that such arrangements or agreements are subject to claims by either party, which clearly shows that both parties have an intention to establish a legal relationship so as to create a situation that they shall be attended by legal consequences. 45. The same applies to the claim of about RMB $10 000 which Madam Sun has alleged that Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun appropriated in Shanghai. 46. Even what Madam Sun said is true, she has not made any agreements with her sons and daughter on the RMB $10 000 and both parties had no intention to establish a legal relationship. Apparently, both parties were in good terms at that time and it was quite normal for Madam Sun to leave the RMB behind for her sons and daughter. Even Madam Sun herself did not pursue them for the money before she took out this proceedings. This clearly shows her attitude towards this matter, that she had no intention to build up any legal relationship with her sons and daughter. 47. By virtue of Section 4 of the Limitation Ordinance, Cap 347, any actions of contract or tort shall not be brought to the court after the expiration of 6 years or 3 years, as the case may be, from the date on which the case took place. 48. The maintenance for Lo Kun and the alleged appropriation of the RMB took place about 20 years ago or more. As being bound by the provision of the Limitation Ordinance, Madam Sun is not allowed to pursue the claim. 2) Madam Sun has alleged that Lo Ching and Lo Kin took her money for their own investment and got profits from it. Therefore she demands them to pay her back the profits. As Lo Kun allowed his brothers and sister to take her money for their own investment, he has to be held responsible as well. 49. Even what Madam said is true, that Lo Kun has breached the trust contract by allowing his brother and sister to take her money for their own investment and make profits, Lo Kun, in law, shall not be held responsible to his mother for the profits gained by his siblings. 50. It is a traditional concept at common law that the court when awarding damages in a breach of contract shall only consider the loss the plaintiff has suffered but not the the benefits the defendant or the 3rd party has gained. How much they gained has nothing to do with the amount of damages. 51. This traditional concept has recently been reaffirmed in Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd. [1993] 1 WLR 1361, in that Dillion LJ states, 52. “The starting point, however, in my judgment is that the remedy at common law for a breach of contract is an award of damages, and damages at common law are intended to compensate the victim for his loss, not to transfer to the victim if he has suffered no loss the benefit which the wrong doer has gained by his breach of contract.” 53. By virtue of the constructive trust raised by the Law of Equity, if a trustee dips into the trust assets for private benefits without the consent of the beneficiary, the trustee has to pay back such benefits to the beneficiary. In the case of Madam Sun, the ones who gained benefits from the investment were Lo Ching and Lo Kin but not the trustee, Lo Kun. 54. Therefore, the constructive trust raised by the Law of Equity is not applicable in the claim made by Madam Sun against Lo Kun. Lo Kun shall have no liabilities providing that he has returned to his mother all the trust assets with interest thereon. 55. Moreover, Madam Sun’s allegation that Lo Kun has allowed Lo Ching and Lo Kin to make use of the trust money for private benefits is only her conjecture and she has no proof for it. As the allegation is made by Madam Sun, the burden of proof lies with her. Lo Ching and No Kin do not need to prove anything to the contrary. Madam Sun’s allegation is based on her conjecture, and the allegation has been denied by Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun. I have no reasons to doubt their evidence in this issue. From the point of law, they need not produce evidence to prove the source of income for buying the property. Nevertheless, Lo Ching has clearly stated that the down payment of $70 000 for the premises at No. 16 Wing Lung Street, Ping Chau, came from her own savings, and the rest payment was made up by a bank loan. 56. Therefore, Madam Sun’s claim for investment benefits has no footing, both on law and on facts. 3) As to the claim for loss in buying GBP, Madam Sun has alleged that Lo Kun changed the HK dollars into GBP without seeking her prior approval. Lo Kun himself has also admitted that the changing of currency was his own idea because GBP was a more steady currency with higher interest rate, which could be served as a better security for Madam Sun. 57. The law confers a trustee with discretion in managing trust affairs. Provided that he is faithful in the execution of his office, he has the right to make decisions on the trust without the consent of the beneficiary. 58. In Learoyd v Whiteley [1887] 12 Appeal Cases 727, Lord Watson states: 59. “As a general rule, the law requires of a trustee no higher degree of diligence in the execution of his office than a man of ordinary prudence would exercise in the management of his own private affairs.” 60. A trustee shall not be responsible for the loss incurred as a result of his wrong decision in the execution of his office unless such loss is due to negligence or default or deliberation on the part of the trustee. 61. As Judge Z E Li says in his Everyday Law Compendium for Hong Kong, Vol. 2, page 182, “The trustee, being authorized to execute his office, should make judgment when exercising his discretion to make decision, and when doing so, he must be honest, with no indirect motives, and have a full consideration over the matter. The court’s duty in this aspect is to see only whether the trustee is honest and upright, fair and square in making the decision, but not whether such decision itself is a right judgment.” 62. Therefore, in law, Lo Kun shall not be liable for the decision to buy GBP that caused Madam Sun a loss unless it is proved that such decision was not only wrong but also a result of his negligence or default or deliberation to cause loss. 63. In the matter of buying GBP, Madam Sun did not blame Lo Kun for being negligent or having a default or deliberation to cause her loss. Also, there is no evidence to show that the decision of changing HK dollars into GBP was wrong. Lo Kun said that the buying and selling rate of GBP did not differ much and the currency had not been affected by the fluctuation of the exchange rate. Moreover, there was steady interest income for the sum for the past 5 years. What Madam Sun has alleged in the writ of summons that the buying of GBP has caused a loss to her is really an unnecessary conjecture which was made without any supporting facts. Therefore, the claim cannot be established, neither on points of law nor on the facts. 4) Regarding the issue about the management of Madam Sun’s assets, I have considered carefully the evidence and the submissions made by both parties. I am satisfied that Lo Ching, Lo Kin and Lo Kun have no intention at all to appropriate their mother’s assets. There is no such fact either. What they did was with their mother’s consent and approval. From their point of view, they consider their way of handling their mother’s assets is the best way to protect their interests. If they had the intention to appropriate her assets, they would not have contributed money and bought a house to accommodate her. Neither would they have supported her and made other arrangement for her livelihood. Throughout they have not denied her of her right to possess her assets and be a beneficiary to it. 64. Nevertheless, Madam Sun, as the only beneficiary to the trust with full vested interests, has capacity and is mentally sound. She can terminate the trust and in that case, Lo Kun, the trustee, may not say that he has to protect her interests and prevent her property from being appropriated and use this as an excuse to refuse her instruction. 65. What concerns me here is whether Lo Kun has fully fulfilled his obligation as a trustee, that he has returned to Madam Sun all her assets. 66. Madam Sun based on P1 and said that the assets she trusted with Lo Kun was about $560 000. Yet this allegation obviously is groundless. The two figures US$14 630.96 and US$15 670.18 as shown in P1 are in fact depicting the same sum. The document clearly tells from itself that the sum of US$15 670.18 is derived from US$14 630.96 plus interests, and it is not a separate sum. 67. As to the issue of how much money Madam Sun had in her trust assets, the burden of proof lies with her. She has no independent record or recollection to rebuke the evidence of Lo Kun, that she had only about $430 000 in her assets but not $560 000. According to the evidence before me and my observation, Lo Kun is honest and reliable in managing Madam Sun’s assets. Although he has not kept all the documents and some of the deposit records are missing, it is understandable when considering that the beneficiary is his mother and it is not a commercial trust. Nevertheless, Lo Kun has listed out in details all the entries of income and expenditures for the trust assets in P1, to which Madam Sun has basically agreed. The only issue is about the commission and solicitor fees for the Property. Since Madam Sun has only 40% interest in the Property, apparently it is unjustified that she bore all the costs. According to Lo Kun, Lo Kin, who is the other beneficiary to the Property, has spent a lot of money in replacing aluminium window frames and installing air- conditioner, microwave oven and other items for Madam Sun as well as providing with her the utensils. Therefore, he does not think that Madam Sun should dispute shouldering the partial payment of the commission and the solicitor fees for Lo Kin. 68. I found what Lo Kin did for his mother was a kind of gift and it was motivated by filial piety. Lo Kun should not make Lo Kin free from paying the commission and the solicitor fees he is due to pay as a kind of reward to him as these are two separate matters. As a trustee, Lo Kun should pay due amount to the right beneficiary. He should not make any unnecessary pay-outs from the trust assets. 69. I appreciate Lo Kun’s purpose for doing so, but his act has failed him in his office in that a trustee should try his every effort to protect the interests of the beneficiary. Therefore, Lo Kun should be responsible for the loss that Madam Sun has suffered. He should return to Madam Sun 60% of the commission and the solicitors fees that he has paid out from Madam Sun’s trust assets for Lo Kin, that is HK$4 353. 5) The last issue is about the Property. At present, the sole registered owner of the Property is Lo Ching. She clearly stated that the money for buying the Property came from her mother and her brother, Lo Kin. Her mother contributed $100 000, whereas Lo Kin $150 000. As far as she herself is concerned, she became the registered owner of the Property just for the sake of rendering assistance in handling her mother’s assets. In law, this arrangement constitutes resulting trust or implied trust, a trust that arises from unexpressed or presumed intention. 70. As Madam Sun provided the fund the Property but Lo Ching was made the registered owner, by virtue of the Law of Equity, the Property is regarded as under resulting trust, in which Lo Ching is the trustee and Madam Sun the beneficiary. Madam Sun clearly stated that the agreement at that time was that $100 000 would be taken out from the trust assets for buying the Property. As the price of the Property was $250 000, she shall have 40% interest in the Property. 71. Madam Sun has averred in her submission that she should have the whole interest in the Property. As I have explained in full details, her claim cannot be established, neither on points of law nor on facts. 72. I hereby order that Madam Sun is one of the beneficiaries to the Property, and Lo Ching the trustee. Madam Sun shall have 40% interest in the Property. 73. Madam Sun insists on selling the Property for proceeds. As I have said earlier, Madam Sun has capacity and is mentally ill notwithstanding her old age. Therefore, her wish should be respected by the Court and the trustees. 74. Both Lo Ching, the trustee to the Property, and Lo Kin, the other beneficiary, do not oppose the selling of the Property. I therefore found it proper to make an order to sell the Property, hoping that it can settle all the disputes between the parties. Held I hereby make order as the following:
Final words 75. As the media and the public have paid much attention to this case, it may cause embarrasement to the parties. In order to be fair to all the parties, I must make it clear that it is not the least a case of appropriation by sons and daughters of their mother’s property. The dispute has arised solely because the siblings are at odds. They suspect each other and have no faith in each other. They even have animosity towards each other. I do not want to make further comment on the relationship between Lo Ching, Lo Kin, Lo Kun and Lo Ping. They are already adults and have received high education. They should be responsible for their own acts. It is my sincere wish that they will not abandon their mother as a result of this case. We have an old Chinese saying “blood relationship and kindred feeling never ceases”. I wish they would be able to understand their mother’s situation and continue to fulfil their obligation as sons and daughters by paying respect and giving support to her so that she can lead an easy life in her old age. I also wish that Madam Sun can learn a lesson here, that she will take charge of her finance without relying on others so as to avoid further untoward incidents. 13th December 1995
|
Further hearings and rulings under HCA 3283/1995