PARK LEUNG TAI WOON v. LEUNG TAI SING, BILLY AND ANOTHER

HCMP 2172/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 2172 OF 2011

______________________

______________________

______________________

________________________

R U L I N G

________________________

1. The plaintiff, Lynda Park, is a beneficiary of the Estate of Madam Yeung Hok Kuen.  The 1^st defendant, Billy Leung, is the Administrator of Madam Yeung’s Estate.  The plaintiff seeks, by originating summons, an order that the 1^st defendant do provide true and perfect accounts of the Estate, alternatively that the 1^st defendant be removed from his position as the Administrator of Madam Yeung’s Estate.

2. Today the plaintiff seeks interlocutory relief to restrain the 1^st defendant from disposing of or dealing with or diminishing the value of the Estate assets. 

3. Ms Ng, who appears for the plaintiff has told me that the thrust of this application is to prevent the sale of various landed properties by the Administrator until the estate accounts have been straightened out.

4. Today I am careful to say as little as possible so as not to influence in any way the main application under the originating summons, and that anything that I do say today should not be seen as impacting upon the merits of that application.

5. There is an alleged delay of about 20 years during which time very little has been done in regard to the administration of Madam Yeung’s Estate.  The 1^st defendant explained this on the basis that there was a family arrangement which in effect placed a moratorium upon the administration of the Estate. 

6. The plaintiff has denied any such arrangement but I am told by Ms Ng on behalf of the plaintiff, that she was content to help during this time and to let the 1^st defendant carry on with the administration or lack of administration of the Estate as it turns out. 

7. It was not until 2010 that the plaintiff became suspicious and concerned as to what the 1^st defendant was allegedly doing or not doing.  This is of course a family matter and, in one way or another, I think the evidence, and the explanation of counsel, suggests that there was really no pressure to deal with the administration of the Estate for a very long time, so that the long delay is not a matter that I in any way hold against the 1^st defendant.

8. As to the accounts themselves, there is, and after what might be described as a somewhat shaky start, an Administrator’s Statement dated 13 February 2012 which has prompted Ms Ng to say: “We are finally getting somewhere.”  On the back of that Administrator’s Statement, the plaintiff has instructed accountants, and has been able to produce its own report as to the content of the Administrator’s Statement.  Ms Ng said that the accountants of both the plaintiff and the 1^st defendant will now try to straighten these accounts out, and will try to “clear up” these accounts. 

9. That leaves the sale the landed properties and, in this respect, I am concerned that as yet there is no date set for the hearing of the originating summons.  That does not appear to be anybody’s fault but the fact is that there is no date in the immediate future. 

10. The sale of the properties will now be by public auction.  I am told, and I am further assured that the 1^st defendant will not in any way take part in the bidding for these properties.  In my view whether the test is a balance of convenience or whether the test is the best interests of the Estate, I think that these properties should now be sold by the Administrator without further delay, and the proceeds be distributed to the beneficiaries.

11. The application for injunctive relief today is dismissed.

12. The costs of the application by the 1^st defendant to file his 4^th affirmation will be costs to the plaintiff in any event. 

13. As to the costs of today’s interlocutory application, my view is that this has been a developing situation.  The earlier accounts produced by the 1^st defendant (I am talking about the 31 August 2011 draft ledger, 27 September 2011 updated accounts and 17 February 2012 interim statement), I agree with Ms Ng that they have unsatisfactory characteristics about them, and I think it is fair to assume that when the plaintiff took out this application she had genuine concerns as to the conduct of the Administrator in relation to these accounts.  It may be now that those concerns have been reduced or in many ways extinguished by the later input of accountants from both sides, but I think that the taking out of this application is understandable, and in those circumstances I propose to make an order that costs be in the cause of the originating summons action.