HCMP 1014/2021
[2025] HKCFI 5849
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1014 OF 2021
_______________________
IN THE ESTATE of LAM KAM WAI (林金威), late of Flat E, 43rd Floor, Block 3, Royal Ascot, Fo Tan, Shatin, New Territories, Hong Kong, deceased (the “Deceased”)
and
IN THE MATTER of Order 85 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap.4A) and the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap. 10) (in particular but without limitation, section 33) and/or inherent jurisdiction of the Court ______________________
BETWEEN
Lam Ka Wai Rebecca
1st Plaintiff
Lam Kai Cheung
2nd Plaintiff
and
Lam Jenny, the administrator of the estate of Lam Kam Wai
1st Defendant
Chui Pak Ming Norman, the administrator of the estate of Lam Kam
Wai
2nd Defendant
Lam Calina Ka Ling
3rd Defendant
Lam Ka Kei Annie
4th Defendant
Lam Philip Kai Tak
5th
Defendant
______________________
Before:
Deputy High Court Judge Le Pichon in Chambers (by paper disposal)
Date of the 2nd Defendant’s written submissions:
9 September 2025
Date of the Administrators’ written submissions:
30 September 2025
Date of the 2nd Defendant’s written reply submissions:
6 October 2025
Date of Costs Ruling:
28 November 2025
____________________________
COSTS RULING
____________________________
1. This is the application of the 2nd defendant, Chui Pak Ming Norman (“D2”) pursuant to leave granted to D2 by an order by consent dated 13 August 2025 (the “Production Order”) to apply for costs in respect of the Summons dated 16 May 2024 (the “Production Summons”) described in §19 below.
Factual background
2. As noted in my Decision dated 5 December 2022 (the “Decision”), Lam Kam Wai (the “Deceased”) died intestate on 8 September 2006, leaving an estate with an estimated value of $557 million (the “Estate”).
3. By an order dated 5 December 2022 (the “Appointment Order”), this Court appointed Norman Guy Donald and Lai Kar Yan Derek (the “Administrators”) administrators of the estate of the Deceased in place of the 1st defendant Lam Jenny (“D1”) and D2, the former administrators. Paragraph 4 of the Appointment Order vested all the assets and monies of the Deceased then registered in the name of D1 and D2 in the Administrators forthwith.
4. Reference should be made to the Decision for the background leading to the appointment of the Administrators to replace the former administrators. The nomenclature used in the Decision will be adopted for this Costs Ruling.
5. As at 5 December 2022, the undistributed assets of the Deceased’s estate include 2 substantial assets (the “Subject Assets”) being the Deceased’s majority shareholdings in Golden Time Enterprises Ltd (“GTE”) and Rainbow Rich Industrial Limited (“Rainbow Rich”) which are of substantial value. Reference should be made to the Decision that considered the Subject Assets at length[1] .
6. This Court concluded that there were reasonable grounds for investigation into the Subject Assets, namely,
(i) an “amount due to ex-director” and “shareholders’ loan” in the amount of $193.7 million recorded in the books and records of GTE (the “GTE Sum”), specifically that portion of US $23.5 million which (according to D1) allegedly comprised round-robin funds between GTE and its PRC subsidiary and was not due to the Estate; and
(ii) a shareholders’ loan of $48.8 million due from Rainbow Rich (the “Rainbow Rich Loan”) to the Estate.
7. Following their appointment, the Administrators requested information regarding, inter alia , the GTE Sum and Rainbow Rich Loan from the former administrators (ie D1 and D2). They sent the former administrators a letter on 7 March 2023 enclosing an information request list[2] and indicating their intention to meet with the former administrators jointly or separately to understand the work performed for the administration of the Estate.
8. D2’s email reply of 10 March 2023 stated that D1 was in a better position to provide the various documents as “she keeps of the accounts, documents, invoice, et cetera.” D2 did not suggest that he did not have copies of the relevant documents in his possession, power or custody save for one item (i.e. the audited financial statements of GTE).
9. Letters of Administration were granted to the Administrators on 21 July 2023.
10. Correspondence ensued between the Administrators and D2 between August 2023 and May 2024.
11. On 22 August 2023, the Administrators requested a handover meeting with D2, noting his response that all the documents were kept by the other former administrator (D1) and requesting D2 to pass to the Administrators immediately any books, records or information (whether in physical or electronic form) in relation to the Estate.
12. In response to the request for a meeting, D2, while prepared to convey what happened when he was the joint administrator, expressed two concerns. First, his concern over his fees which he may not recover. Second, what D2 may give the Administrators may be used as evidence against D2 by the solicitors for the Plaintiffs who had reserved the right to sue D2 as the joint administrator.
13. Further exchanges occurred in October 2023, with the Administrators agreeing[3] that costs to be incurred by D2 in his capacity as former administrator of the Estate shall be payable out of the Estate on the basis that such costs are reasonable and subject to taxation. D2 sought and obtained confirmation[4] that, subject to taxation, the Estate will pay his costs at $5200 per hour.
14. Regarding his second concern, D2 suggested that whatever he gives to the Administrators may not be used as evidence against him in any civil action save for (a) fraud; (b) unlawful misappropriation of the estate assets; or (c) any crime committed by him. The Administrators counter proposed to add to the list of exceptions “(d) negligence and (e) breach of fiduciary duties” to which there was no reply.
15. As regards the proposed handover meeting D2 demurred on the basis that he may be subject to cross examination and, instead, requested a list of information which he would respond to in writing.
16. On 11 November 2023, the Administrators sent D2 a Question List that included questions relating to Estate Administration including information regarding the operation of GTE, Rainbow Rich, Golden Time Chemical (Jiangsu) Co Ltd (“GTC”) and DB Link Property Ltd (“DB Link”) (collectively, the “Companies”).
17. D2 provided some answers and repeated his suggestion that the Administrators request documents from D1 on the basis that she was responsible for keeping records without stating that he did not have copies in his possession. His replies led to two follow up lists of questions: a follow-up list 1 on 8 February 2024 and a second follow-up List 2 on 6 May 2024.
18. Some of D2’s responses suggested that he had some documents in his possession. For example, his responses that “upon the request of the solicitors for [the Plaintiffs], [D1] would provide the financial statements [of GTE, Rainbow Rich and DB Link] to me for onward transmission to them[5] ” and “I stress bank statements in my possession might not be complete[6] ” suggested that he had documents in his possession.
19. On 16 May 2024, the Administrators took out the Production Summons against, inter alia , D2. They sought an order, inter alia, that
(a) the Administrators be authorised to pursue such lines of enquiry as they consider to be appropriate and to investigate whether there exist claims which ought to be pursued in the interest of the estate of the Deceased; and
(b) D1 and D2 do provide the documents set out in the list attached to the Production Summons (the “Requested Documents”) to the Administrators within 14 days from the date of the Order.
20. The Deceased was a shareholder of the Companies. The Requested Documents included basic financial records in respect of GTE, Rainbow Rich and DB Link such as the financial statements and management accounts.
21. D2, being a former administrator of the Estate, which was a shareholder of those companies, should have had those documents in his possession, power and custody.
Costs of the Production Summons
22. The Production Summons was dealt with by consent as between the Administrators and D2. Although the Administrators were prepared not to seek costs of the Production Summons as against D2[7] , the parties were unable to agree on costs. They agreed directions for the issue of costs to be dealt with on paper as part of the Production Order. Hence, this Costs Ruling.
23. On 7 June 2024, D2 filed his affidavit (“D2 1st ”) to the effect that (i) he was not a director of each of the Companies referred to in the list attached to the Summons; (ii) he did not have access to the Requested Documents; (iii) he was not in possession of the Requested Documents; and (iv) D1 kept the Requested Documents and D2 did not have possession of them.
24. D2’s position is that because he was not in possession of the Requested Documents and not being a director of any of the Companies must mean that he did not possess the Requested Documents and hence could not provide them. He considered that he had no power to require provision of such documents because only a director could do so and he was not.
25. However, he was one of the former administrators and in that capacity he clearly had power and authority to obtain corporate documents of companies whose shares form part of the Estate. As earlier noted[8] , the Requested Documents were documents which could reasonably be expected to be in the possession, power and custody of an administrator of an estate which held (or had held) shares in GTE, Rainbow Rich and DB Link.
26. Mr Jonathan Fung, counsel for the Administrators, highlighted the fact that D2 only deposed as to whether he was in possession of the Requested Documents and not whether he had possession, power or custody of them (that being the standard formulation[9] ). D2’s answers were at best equivocal, suggesting at every turn that D1 was better placed to respond. There was no express statement that D2 did not have the Requested Documents in his possession.
27. That D2 did in fact have possession, power or custody of at least some of the Requested Documents is supported by various passages of D2 1st . §12, in pertinent part, reads as follows:
“12. From time to time, [D1] would send me copies of the bank statements of the estate account maintained with HSBC … Upon receipt of the same, I would circulate it to the Plaintiff’s then solicitors. Ever since we made distribution of substantial cash, all shares, funds and bonds etc. in the account, [D1] would not send me copies bank statements as frequently as before … To [D1’s] credit, she would let me have copies of the bank statements upon my request.”
28. In §13, D2 stated that whenever the Plaintiff’s solicitors asked for documents relating to the Estate from him, he would request D1 for the same.
29. D2 also referred to the occasion in May 2015[10] when the Plaintiffs (who were in the course of negotiation for a sale and purchase of shares in Rainbow Rich) asked for audit reports for the years 2013 and 2014. He was provided with the same after making requests to D1.
30. Having regard to those matters, D2’s contention that the Production Summons should never have been issued because he had made his position clear in pre-Production Summons correspondence that he did not have possession of the Requested Documents and was not a director of the Companies must be rejected.
31. Moreover, even assuming D2 stated in his pre-Production Summons correspondence that he did not have the Requested Documents in his possession, power and custody, the Administrators would nevertheless be justified in requiring D2’s confirmation on oath.
32. By clause 1 of the Production Order, D2 agreed, inter alia , to file and serve an affirmation stating whether the Requested Documents were in his possession, custody and power and provide copies of such documents which are within his possession, custody and power to the Administrators within 14 days thereafter.
33. D2 filed his 2nd affidavit on 26 August 2025 (“D2 2nd ”)[11] .
34. D2’s alternative position is that the Production Summons could have been disposed of soon after 7 June 2024 (the date of D2 1st ) and considerable costs would have been saved.
35. However, as appears from §§27-29 above, that is not quite the case. D2 never addressed the question whether as one of the administrators of the Estate he had power or custody over the Requested Documents.
36. Despite D2’s submission that there is no utility in asking for an order in terms of the Consent Summons, D2 nevertheless entered into the Consent Summons and continues to argue that the agreement to provide D2 2nd should not be taken that the Administrators were justified to take out the Production Summons against D2.
37. D2 agreed to the Consent Summons because it was “a sensible step”. Otherwise the scheduled hearing would have had to go ahead, incurring further costs.
38. While I do not consider that D2 can have it both ways, it makes no practical difference since as explained above, the Administrators had good reason to take out the Production Summons.
Ruling
39. As I am of the view that the Administrators were justified in taking out the Production Summons and obtained the relief sought by way of the Consent Order, there is no reason to award costs of the Production Summons to D2. His application for costs falls to be dismissed.
40. Accordingly, I order that there be no order as to costs of the Production Summons as between the Administrators and D2.
Costs of this application
41. The Administrators who have successfully resisted D2’s application for costs in respect of the Production Summons seek the costs of their submissions and have lodged their statement of costs (“SOC”) for summary assessment.
42. D2’s submissions did not address this issue. As a matter of principle, I see no reason why the Administrators (being the successful party) cannot seek those costs against D2.
43. I direct that
(a) D2 do have leave within 14 days of this Ruling, if so advised
(i) to submit written submissions (limited to 2 pages) in opposition to the Administrators’ application; and
(ii) to lodge his list of objections (limited to one page) to the SOC.
(b) The Administrators to have leave to file reply submissions (limited to one page) within 7 days thereafter.
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Mr Jonathan Fung, instructed by Messrs. Deacons, for the Administrators
The 2nd Defendant, acting in person
[1] See §§18-59 of the Decision.
[2] These concerned (1) Proceedings related documents; (2) Probate and Estate accounts; and (3) Companies and Estate information.
[3] See Deloitte’s email dated October 25, 2023.
[4] See Deacons’ letter of 20 November 2023.
[5] See page 6 of D2’s letter of 2 December 2023 at C/23/196-197.
[6] See D2’s response to section C2 of the 2nd list of follow-up questions of 6 May 2024 at B/22/190.
[7] D2’s position is that the relief the Administrators sought in the Production Summons did not include costs against D2: D2’s Reply Submissions, p.18.
[8] See §§20-21 above.
[9] As a solicitor, D2 should be familiar with the formulation and what it entails.
[10] D2 1st at §34 (c) (i).
[11] In D2 2nd , D2 only deposes to his “possession” of the Requested Documents when the Production Order expressly required D2 to state the Requested Documents are in his “possession, custody and power”.