Re Koo Pauline Veronica
Read the full judgment text of HCAG 6613/2005 on BabelCite. This HCAG judgment was delivered on 14 December 2005.
1. This is the second application on the new Non-Contentious Probate List. Mr. L. Lok, solicitor acting for the applicant, does not agree with requisition no. 7 and asks me to tick it off.
Cites 1 case
|
HCAG 6613/2005 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE APPLICATION FOR GRANT NO. 6613 OF 2005 ______________________
______________________ Coram : Master J. Wong in Chambers Date of Hearing: 2 December 2005 Date of Decision: 14 December 2005 _______________ D E C I S I O N _______________ Application 1.This is the second application on the new Non-Contentious Probate List. Mr. L. Lok, solicitor acting for the applicant, does not agree with requisition no. 7 and asks me to tick it off.
Background 2.The Deceased died testate on 1 May 2003. By paragraph 2 of her Will dated 9 July 1996, she appointed two executors and trustees.
3.The executors filed their affidavit (“the Affidavit”) with the Registry on 13 July 2005. There had been some requisitions raised on the Affidavit and it was amended and re-filed on both 19 August 2005 and 9 November 2005. 4.Now, after the amendments, paragraph 1 of the Affidavit reads as follows:
5.No doubt, one will immediately note that the name of “SHUM TAI KAWN, CHRISTINE (沈大群)” appears twice and the latter should be deleted. Mr. Lok conceded on this. The Requisition 6.Nonetheless, the officer asked for more. Requisition no. 7 required that the other executor Mr. Koo should be described exactly as appearing on the Will, i.e. “PATRICK KOO (古萬祥)” only. 7.It is said that paragraph 1 of the Specified Form asks for a “cut and paste” exercise only. Mr. Lok should have simply recited the appointment as per the Will. The description of Mr. Koo in the form of “… (in the Will called …)” is only to be stated in the originating paragraph of the Affidavit. The Ruling 8.Having carefully considered the matter, I have come to the conclusion that requisition 7 is to be ticked off. My reasons appear below. 9.The Specified Forms shall be substantially complied with (In the estate of Yip Ho, Judgment dated 9 November 2005 in CACV 227/2004). Has Mr. Lok done so? 10.In my view, the court’s concern really boils down to the fact that the description of the executor in the grant shall correspond with that in his identification document. The grant is to be issued accordingly or that, the executor will face difficulties when he will administer the estate because people might have doubt as to his identity. If the testator misspelt or otherwise incorrectly described the executor in the Will, it shall be made known to the court by affidavit, and thereafter, correctly stated in the grant. 11.Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, 29th Edition, at page 130 provides us with the following useful guidance:
12.By reading the description of Mr. Koo under the existing paragraph 1, I do not consider that it will lead to any misunderstanding. It is Mr. Koo being one of the executors, in the Will called PATRICK KOO (古萬祥) but in his ID Card, KOO MAN CHEONG, PATRICK LOUIS (古萬祥) and commonly known as PATRICK KOO. So be it. 13.I agree that a simple recap of the description as per the Will in paragraph 1 suffices. However, I am not going to insist that it is the only way. In my eyes, the approach adopted by Mr. Lok is substantially the same. In the end, Mr. Koo will be correctly described in the grant to be issued.
Mr. L Lok of Messrs. Leo K. W. Lok & Co for the Applicant |
Cases cited in this judgment