Au Yeung Yee Man v. Wan Po Jun Mary Pauline
Read the full judgment text of CACV 208/2009 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 March 2011 before Tang Ag CJHC, Yeung JA, Yuen JA.
Probate and administration – estate of deceased – claim by cohabitee for share of estate as compensation for breach of promise to marry – Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance (Cap. 23) s.23 – whether agreement to marry gives rise to legal rights – striking out of defence and counterclaim – removal of caveat – grant of probate – appeal dismissed – application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether question of great general or public importance arises – held that whether s.23 of LARCO should be amended is not a matter for adjudication by the court – leave refused with costs to be taxed unless agreed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Cited by 7 cases
|
CACV 208/2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 208 OF 2009 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO. 19 OF 2008) --------------------------------
-------------------------------- BETWEEN
-------------------------------- Before: Hon Tang Ag CJHC, Yeung JA and Yuen JA in Court Date of Hearing: 14 January 2011 Date of Judgment: 7 March 2011 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ Hon Tang Ag CJHC (giving the judgment of the Court): 1.In the judgment dated 17 June 2009 Master Levy ordered that the Defence and Counterclaim of the Defendant be struck out; that the Caveat entered by the Defendant should cease to have effect, and that the Plaintiff was entitled to apply for a grant of probate of the deceased’s estate. 2.The Defendant’s appeal was heard by Yam J on 19 August 2009. On the same day, Yam J dismissed the appeal. The Defendant then appealed to us and her appeal was dismissed by our judgment of 6 October 2010. 3.Now the Defendant applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment. 4.The Defendant’s case is that the deceased had cohabited with her for many years. She contended that she is entitled to administer and share the deceased’s estate as compensation for breach of promise to marry on the part of the Deceased. 5.The Defendant submitted that a question of great general or public importance may be involved because section 23 of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance, Cap. 23 (“LARCO”) could be amended with retrospective effect. Section 23 of LARCO provides that:
6.Whether section 23 of LARCO should be amended is not a matter for adjudication by the court. There is no basis upon which leave to appeal could be granted. 7.So we refuse leave to appeal with costs to be taxed unless agreed.
The Defendant, in person, present Mr. Paul H. M. Leung, instructed by Messrs Liu, Chan & Lam, for the Plaintiff | ||||||||||||||
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 208/2009