AU-YEUNG YEE MAN v. WAN PO JUN MARY PAULINE

HCAP19/2008

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO. 19 OF 2008

----------------------------

----------------------

----------------------

D E C I S I O N

----------------------

1. On 19 August 2009 I have given judgment in favour of the plaintiff dismissing the defendant’s appeal against the Decision of Master Levy striking out the defendant’s Defence and Counterclaim on 17 June 2009.  This action therefore came to an end.

2. However the defendant, acting in person, issued a summons on 5 March 2010 seeking an injunction to restrain the plaintiff from “carrying out her duties and administration of the estate of the said Deceased under the relevant Probate now being granted yet being disputed under various legal proceedings”.

3. As the action had already come to an end, it is not permissible for the defendant to take out this summons.

4. Further there is no ground for the defendant in applying for an injunction restraining the plaintiff, being the executrix of the Deceased’s estate, to discharge or to carry out the Will of the Deceased into effect.

5. As explained by this Court repeatedly to the defendant, her grievances were in two points only, namely :

(i)    that she has an equity in the Property she once occupied together with the Deceased as man-and-woman and now by her alone; and

(ii)  that she alleged that she was entitled to apply for a grant under the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance, Cap. 481. 

The aforesaid 2 points are apparently the subject matter of another High Court action HCA1478/2009.

6. In the end there is no ground for the defendant to support her application for an injunction against the plaintiff.  The summons therefore has to be dismissed with costs to the plaintiff, to be taxed if not agreed.