CHOI LAM FAT LUKE v. CHOI SAU YING JENNY AND ANOTHER

HCMP 161/2025

[2026] HKCFI 2306

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 161 OF 2025

_________________

_________________

_________________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  This is an application for leave to file an affirmation of the 2^nd Defendant for a hearing which is due to take place on 29 April, in less than three weeks’ time. Leave is opposed by the Plaintiff who says that it is late and affects the preparation of his case, and that as it would be necessary for him to file further evidence in opposition, the hearing date would be jeopardized.

2.  The application arises in the following context.

3.  The proceedings concern the estate of the Deceased who is the father of the Plaintiff and the Defendants as well as other persons who are not parties to the proceedings.

4.  The Deceased died in March 2023 intestate, and Letters of Administration were granted to the Defendants.

5.  On 28 January 2025, the Plaintiff filed the Originating Summons (“OS”) for (amongst other things) an account and for an order that he replace the Defendants as administrator. He filed an affirmation in support the same day.

6.  On 9 April 2025, the Defendants filed the affirmation of the 1^st Defendant in opposition. The 2nd Defendant did not file any evidence on his own.

7.  On 26 June 2025, Master Hui gave an order for the Plaintiff to file an affirmation in reply, the time for which was subsequently extended to 21 August 2025. Master Hui also ordered that no further affirmation may be filed without leave of the court.

8.  On 20 August 2025, the Plaintiff filed his affirmation in reply (“CLF II”).

9.  Apparently in September 2025, a first draft of the 2^nd Defendant’s affirmation was provided to the Plaintiff for consideration. (Ms Tang counsel for the Plaintiff said the drafts are different, but since the drafts are not before the court, it is not known how substantial or not the differences are). There was no final draft at the time, as the parties were in negotiations for the sale of a property known as Hong Pak Court which was one of the matters in issue in the proceedings. Eventually on 30 December 2025, the parties signed a consent summons relating to the sale of the abovementioned property. This was approved by the court in February 2026.

10.  On 18 September 2025, the OS was fixed to be heard on 29 April 2026 before Deputy Judge Grace Chow.

11.  On 27 March 2026, the Defendants filed a summons for leave to file the 2^nd Defendant’s affirmation. As I have said, this is opposed by the Plaintiff.

12.  Having considered the contents of the 2^nd Defendant’s affirmation and the Plaintiff’s submissions in opposition, I consider in the exercise of the court’s discretion that leave should be granted. I am aware of course that this is very close to the hearing date of the OS and that one of the underlying objectives of the Civil Justice Reform is that a case should be dealt with as expeditiously as is reasonably practicable.

13.  However, I note in this case that it was reasonable for the Defendants to file evidence to answer CLF II which contained new matters not in his first affirmation, such as an assertion that the 2^nd Defendant did not have financial resources with which to lend funds to the Deceased. The 2^nd Defendant’s affirmation seeks (amongst other things) to provide evidence to the contrary. Although an affirmation containing this aspect could have been filed earlier, the 2^nd Defendant’s affirmation also updates the court on the sale of Hong Pak Court which only occurred three months ago. Apart from that, it would appear that there were unsuccessful mediation proceedings in February 2026.

14.  There is no allegation from the Plaintiff that he has suffered any specific prejudice from the late filing of this affirmation from the 2^nd Defendant. As he has had sight of the first draft of the affirmation back in September, he has had adequate time to prepare any affirmation in answer if he considers it necessary assuming of course that he obtains leave to file it.

15.  In any event, the affirmations reveal that the source of funds will be a material factor. Ms Tang no longer challenges this. By reason of the factual disputes disclosed in the affirmations so far, this may well be a case where cross examination may be required, in which case the half day allocated for the hearing of the OS on 29 April would in any event be insufficient and new dates would have to be fixed, but that is a matter for the judge hearing the matter on 29 April.

16.  For the above reasons, I would make an order in terms of the Summons, with costs to be paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiff.