CHAN CHU WA AND ANOTHER v. CHAN CHAU FUNG, the administratrix of the estate of POON SIU CHUN, deceased

HCAP 8/2024

[2025] HKCFI 3322

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

PROBATE ACTION NO 8 OF 2024

________________________

________________________

________________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

1.  This is my decision on:

(1)  para 2 of the plaintiffs’ summons dated 18 March 2024 seeking interim distribution of the estate of Madam Poon Siu Chun (which is restored before me today).  I shall call the plaintiffs’ summons “the plaintiffs’ restored summons” and para 2 “the interim distribution application” below; and

(2)  the defendant’s summons dated 16 July 2025 asking for an order that the interim distribution application be adjourned and heard together with the originating summons in HCMP 247/2025 at the substantive hearing scheduled for 12 August of this year. 

2.  I make the following orders: 

(1)  Without prejudice to the plaintiffs seeking further interim distribution from the estate in other proceedings, there be no order made on the interim distribution application.  

(2)  For that reason, there be no order made on the defendant’s summons. 

3.  These are my reasons. 

4.  The present action has been commenced wrongly as a matter of procedure.  The plaintiffs should not be seeking reliefs such as removal of the defendant as the administratrix in this probate action under the HCAP list. 

5.  At the hearing on 24 January this year, I made no order on the plaintiffs’ application to transfer the action to the HCA list.  Further, subject to two exceptions, I stayed the present action.  I did so based on the plaintiffs’ confirmation at the conclusion of the hearing that they would commence a fresh action against the defendant to seek reliefs, including an order to remove her as the administratrix, by way of an originating summons. 

6.  The plaintiffs’ restored summons was also heard on the same day.  Seeing that there was room for some immediate interim distribution, I ordered the defendant to give a proposal of distribution within 56 days.  I also adjourned the interim distribution application with liberty to restore.  That was done in the hope that the parties could reach consensus on interim distribution. 

7.  As mentioned, the stay order was subject to two exceptions.  One of those two exceptions was the carrying out of the orders which I made on the issue of interim distribution.  In other words, the action was kept alive partly because there appeared to me to be a strong case for some immediate interim distribution to be made to the beneficiaries. 

8.  In the end, by consent, interim distribution in the total sum of $2 million was made on 9 May 2025. 

9.  Not satisfied, the plaintiffs sought to restore the interim distribution application for further distribution. 

10.  I acceded to that request on 11 June 2025.  I fixed today’s hearing as a directions hearing, with 30 minutes reserved, for that purpose. 

11.  In the meantime, as envisaged at the hearing in January, the plaintiffs commenced the proceedings in HCMP 247/2025 in February.  The substantive hearing of the originating summons is fixed for 12 August. 

12.  It only came to my notice upon reading the defendant’s submissions lodged in advance of today’s hearing that in the originating summons, the plaintiffs are also seeking relief for interim distribution:  see para 3.  

13.  It is plain that the plaintiffs should not be seeking the same relief in two sets of proceedings at the same time.  They must make a choice. 

14.  When the plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to this court to restore the interim distribution application, no mention was made of the same relief which they seek in the HCMP proceedings. 

15.  What happened was that on 6 May 2025, when considering the request to restore, the court specifically asked the plaintiffs to give details of the new set of proceedings.  By letter dated 9 June 2025, the plaintiffs’ solicitors responded as follows: 

“The 1^st and 2^nd Plaintiffs have already commenced the proceedings for the removal of the defendant as administratrix by Originating Summons on the 14^th of February 2025 (HCMP 247/2025). A substantive hearing has been fixed for 12 August 2025 commencing at 10 a.m. before the Honourable Mr. Justice Keith Yeung with 3 hours reserved.”

16.  Those were all the details which the solicitors gave at the court’s request. 

17.  Without knowing that the same relief of interim distribution was also being sought in the HCMP proceedings, I fixed today’s hearing to restore the interim distribution application. 

18.  Today, Mr George Chu, appearing for the plaintiffs, asks for a substantive order that the defendant do make a further interim distribution of $5 million. 

19.  Apart from the 1^st and 2^nd plaintiffs and the defendant, there are four other beneficiaries.  Mr Chu submits that two of those four beneficiaries should not be entitled to further interim distribution because they have already taken substantial sums from the estate. 

20.  I refuse to grant relief as the application for further interim distribution should not continue here in this action, but rather it should be pursued in the HCMP proceedings.  In fact, that is one of the reliefs asked for in the originating summons there. 

21.  There are two main reasons. 

22.  First, I made the order in January, directing the defendant to give a proposal for interim distribution.  That resulted in the distribution of the uncontroversial part of the estate.  Now that the HCMP proceedings are on foot, relief for further distribution should be sought there. 

23.  Second, the two beneficiaries mentioned above are not parties in this action, but they are named as the 2^nd and 3^rd defendants in the HCMP proceedings. 

24.  Given the plaintiffs’ stance that the two beneficiaries should not be entitled to further interim distribution, it is difficult to see how the court can fairly proceed to make an order today and in this action in favour of the plaintiffs without hearing from those two beneficiaries.  They are the defendants in the HCMP proceedings.  Their entitlement to interim distribution, if any, should be dealt with there.  

25.  For these reasons, the plaintiffs should continue to pursue the interim distribution issue as part of their reliefs sought in the HCMP proceedings. 

26.  Hence, the interim distribution application and the present action should come to an end. 

27.  As I have already made an order by consent for the initial distribution, rather than dismissing the application today, I would make no order on that application.  For that reason, similarly, I would make no order on the defendant’s adjournment summons. 

(SUBMISSIONS RE COSTS)

28.  This is my order on costs.  The costs of the interim distribution application, today’s hearing, and the defendant’s adjournment summons be reserved pending the disposal of the proceedings in HCMP 247/2025.