PANG YUK CHING v. PANG WING LUK also known as PANG YAN LUK

HCMP 1762/2025

[2025] HKCFI 5976

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1762 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

_____________________

DECISION

_____________________

Introduction and Background

1.  This is an application by Ex-Parte Originating Summons filed on 8 October 2025 (“OS”) by the Applicant for a vesting order under section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance, Cap.29 (“the Ordinance”) in respect of Lot No. 5225 in Demarcation District No. 51 (“the Lot”).

2.  According to the Applicant, who has filed an affirmation in support of the OS:

(1)  The Respondent is the Applicant’s father, Pang Wing Luk, also known as Pang Yan Luk;

(2)  To the best of his information, knowledge and belief, prior to the late 1960s, Pang Wing Luk changed his name from Pang Yan Luk, as evident from the Respondent’s name stated on his birth certificate, his brother’s birth certificate and the family genealogy in 1989;

(3)  In the early 1979, the Applicant, an indigenous villager being a male person of at least 18 years of age descended through the male line from a person who was in 1898 a resident in an established village in Hong Kong, was allowed by the Government to develop a “Small House” type building in the Lot pursuant to the New Grant No. 11488 (“the New Grant”);

(4)  At the time of the New Grant, the Applicant was only a minor of 18 years of age thus the New Grant was signed on 13 February 1979 by the Respondent as trustee of the Applicant under s.18 of the New Territories Ordinance, Cap. 97;

(5)  The Respondent died on 24 April 1996 without having vested his interest in, and legal title to the Lot in the Applicant;

(6)  To the best of his information, knowledge and belief, no grant of representation in respect of the Respondent’s estate was ever applied for, made or issued by the Probate Registry.

Discussion and Disposition

3.  Section 45(e) of the Ordinance provides, “where there is no personal representative of a deceased trustee who was entitled to or possessed of any interest in land, or where it is uncertain who is the personal representative of a deceased trustee who was entitled to or possessed of any interest in land… the court may make an order (in this Ordinance called a vesting order) vesting the land or interest therein in any such person in any such manner and for any such estate or interest as the court may direct …”.

4.  Once the preconditions set out in the statute have been satisfied, the Court has a discretion to vest the property directly in the beneficiary: see Re LeeYang, Shiu Chuen Joyce [2021] 4 HKLRD 252 at §16 per DHCJ Paul Lam SC.

5.  The court may make a vesting order in an ex parte application if there is clear evidence justifying making one.  However, the Court must proceed cautiously because it is being asked to make a final, as opposed to interlocutory order which, in practical terms, could be worth millions of dollars without hearing any opposing party, or without anyone challenging the applicant for failing to make full and frank disclosure.  The court must examine the evidence presented by the applicant critically: see Re Man Kin as the administrator of the estate of Man Pak Chun (unrep) HCMP 2565/2014, 18 April 2016, per Chow J (as he then was) at §§11-12.

6.  Having examined the evidence before me critically, applying the above legal principles, I am satisfied that Respondent who was appointed as trustee has passed away, there was no personal representatives of the deceased and that this is a proper case for this court to exercise its discretion to make a vesting order that all rights, title and interests of the Respondent, as trustee under s.18 of the New Territories Ordinance, Cap. 97, of and in the Lot do vest in the Applicant free and discharged from all trust.

7.  I make no order as to costs.

8.  I will make an order in terms of the draft Order as amended by me.