XCHRX LIU SUMIN v. LAU TIT SHUN

HCMP 5037/1998

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 5037 OF 1998

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. This is an application on the part of Madam Liu Sumin for an order that it be declared that the Defendant was precluded by the rule of public policy referred to in Part VA of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap.23 as "the Forfeiture Rule" from acquiring (1) any interest in the Deceased's estate under the law relating to intestacy, and (2) any interest by way of survivorship in the properties held under the joint names of the Deceased and the Defendant, in particular, the previous matrimonial property known as Duplex Unit 1-B on the Ground and First Floors together with the Yard on the Ground Floor of Man Wah Court No.7 Peony Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong.

2. The facts are quite clear and have been set out in the affirmations of Wing Fai Leung and Patrick Yeung Pui Choi. What they show is that the Deceased Lau So Pui, Rebecca was married to the Defendant. On 25th October 1996, the Deceased was killed by the Defendant. On 14th October 1998, the Registrar of the High Court certified that the Defendant was on 17th June 1997 convicted on his plea of guilty to manslaughter to the offence in common law of manslaughter of the Deceased.

3. By an order made by Master Kwan which was filed on 3rd February 1999, Master Kwan ordered that Liu Sumin, the Plaintiff, be appointed to represent the estate of the Deceased and to continue this action against the Defendant.

4. Part VA of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance contains provisions under the rule of forfeiture. The "Forfeiture Rule" means the rule of law relating to public policy which in certain circumstances precludes a person who has unlawfully killed another from acquiring a benefit in consequence of the killing. In the present case, the Defendant has entered a plea of guilty to manslaughter and has been convicted of such, i.e. of unlawfully killing the Deceased.

5. Under Part VA, there is provision under section 25B for the Court to modify the Rule on application made by the offender. However, the Defendant in the present case has not made any such application, nor does the evidence show that there are any circumstances in which it would be just to require the effect of the Rule to be modified and to be applied in this case.

6. In any event, under section 25B(3), the offender, that is the Defendant, is out of time. In a fax letter which has been sent to the Court yesterday afternoon, the Defendant's solicitors have indicated that they would not object to the application.

7. In the circumstances, I will declare that the Defendant was precluded by the Forfeiture Rule referred to in Part VA of the Law Amendment and Reform (Consolidation) Ordinance Cap.23 from acquiring any interest in the estate of Lau So Pui, Rebecca, the Deceased under the law relating to intestacy and any interest by way of survivorship in the properties held under the joint names of the Deceased and the Defendant, whether in or out of Hong Kong including the matrimonial property referred to in this decision.

8. The costs of the Plaintiff of this action should be paid by the Defendant on a party and party basis to be taxed if not agreed and the Plaintiff's own costs should be taxed in accordance with Legal Aid Regulations.