RE HAN FEI

HCAG 1463/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

APPLICATION FOR GRANT NO. 1463 OF 2015

_________________________

_________________________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

Introduction

1.  In the present decision, I will decide if the application for grant has been prepared so badly that it should be dismissed.

Background

2.  The Deceased died intestate in the States on 8 March 2014 at the age of 55.  She was domiciled in PRC.

3.  On 29 July 2014, the husband (“the husband”) of the Deceased executed a power of attorney to his solicitor (the solicitor”) in Hong Kong authorizing him to apply for letters of administration of the Deceased with this court.

4.  The solicitor submitted the application on 29 January 2015.  He filed nine documents.

(a) Supporting affirmation in Specified Form L1.1a (“L1.1a”).

(b) Death certificate of the Deceased.

(c) Copy passports of the Deceased, the husband and their son.

(d) 委托書。

(e) 法律鑒證書。

(f) Cremation certificate of the Deceased.

(g) Specified Form N2.1 (“N2.1”).

(h) Specified Form N4.1 (“N4.1”).

(i) 通知代表。

5.  No checklist was prepared and filed.

6.  Requisitions were raised on 2 March 2015.

“ 1. Please advise if the power of attorney at folio 4 appointed the solicitor as the lawful attorney to apply for letters of administration of the estate of the Deceased or otherwise.

2. Subject to reply to requisition 1, please file fresh power of attorney with reference to specified form L3.1.

Further requisitions will be raised after the above requisitions have answered.”

7.  On 11 June 2015, the solicitor replied.

“根據上一次日子在二零一五年三月二日發給我們的信件，我們作為 [the husband] 的代表律師，我們分析後發現問題只有二個：

1. 我們到現在為止不是 [the husband] 的代表律師。

2. 我們到現在為止是 [the husband] 的代表律師，而且我們代表 [the husband] 作出反對。

如果梁小姐你認為我們不是 [the husband] 的代表律師，請梁小姐你告訴我們要如何進行該文件的修改，雖知梁小姐你是遺產承辦處的職員，是有責任提點我們需要修改的部分，而且我們打電話給梁小姐作出詢問超過了兩個星期，這兩個星期還是收不到梁小姐你的回覆，我們不清楚梁小姐你是否還在放假中，還是有其他原因，請梁小姐你回覆我們。

我們一直都十分尊重蔡先生、寧先生、梁小姐你等人，我們承認我們只是一名律師，不是每天都坐在遺產承辦處中研究法律，我們並不精於遺產承辦的法律，所以如果我們有什麼遺留的地方，希望梁小姐你立即告訴我們，因為我們客戶 [the husband] 一直等候你的消息，如果梁小姐你認為我們是 [the husband] 的代表律師，我們會提出反對，反對根據梁小姐你的要求重新再做一遍所有文件。

如果梁小姐你認為我們不是 [the husband] 的代表律師而需要 [the husband] 再作申請，我們可以通知梁小姐你 [the husband] 可以跟你約一個日子時間來補充他需要的文件。

最後請梁小姐你回覆信件或是打電話給我們，我們的電話號碼是……。”

8.  The matter was then referred to me on 18 June 2015 as a shoddy application.

9.  On 25 June 2015, I informed the solicitor in the followings.

“The matter has been referred to me as “shoddy application” and should be ordered to be withdrawn/dismissed by the court, without prejudice to a new application to be submitted.

The solicitor is respectfully requested to write within 28 days to this court to show cause as to why the aforesaid course is not to be adopted. In the event that the solicitor wishes to make oral representation, please file within 28 days a notice of appointment for hearing (2 hours reserved) before me.

If applicable, [the husband] and his family members are welcomed to attend the appointment.

Please take note that this court might hand down a written judgment in the end.”

10.  The solicitor filed a notice of appointment on 8 July 2015.  He together with the husband appeared before me on 22 July 2015.

11.  The solicitor asked for a grant to be issued.  He explained to me the relationship of the parties and said that the estate was small.

12.  I reiterated, as in my earlier directions, the purpose of the appointment and questioned if the solicitor had an idea about the problems about the application.  I started to name a few of them, including the use of incorrect specified form.  The solicitor asked for directions or waiver of the non-compliance of the rules and practices.  The husband was said to have waited for too long.

13.  I reserved my decision to be handed down.  Here it is.

Ruling and reasons

14.  Upon thought, in my view, it is a better course for everyone that the application is to be dismissed and have it to re-done again.

Application Form

(a) The Deceased died domiciled in PRC. Rule 29 of the Non-Contentious Probate Rules (Cap.10A) (“NCPR”) should be relied upon and it requires an ex-parte application. No such application was filed. Paragraph 242 of the Guide to Non-Contentious Probate Practice (“the Guide to NCPP”) is referred to.

(b) L1.1a was used. It is not correct. Either Specified Form F3.1 or F4.1 should have been adopted.  Paragraphs 242 to 250 of the Guide to NCPP are referred to.

Death of the Deceased

(c) The Death Certificate of the Deceased was not authenticated. She died in the States which is a party to the Hague Convention. Her Death Certificate could be authenticated by an apostille.  Footnote 44 on page 45 of the Guide to NCPP is referred to.

(d) The cremation certificate is not needed.

Basis of Application

(e) Either an affidavit of law[1]or a Certificate of Inheritance (繼承權公證書)[2] (duly authenticated) should have been filed to support the application.  Paragraphs 246 to 250 of the Guide to NCPP are referred to.  

(f) The 法律鑒證書filed  states that:

“

法律鑒證書

浙江民禾律師事務所接受[the husband]的委托，就其與[the Deceased]是否存在夫妻關係提供鑒証。根據 [the husband]提供的身份証、婚姻登記証、戶口本，以及本律師的調查確認以下事實：

[The husband]：男，1956年……，住址：……，身份證號碼：……；

[The Deceased]，女，1958年……，住址：……，身份證號碼：……；

於1982年11月24日登記註冊結婚，根據《中華人民共和國婚姻法》的規定，確係夫妻關係。另根據《中華人民共和國繼承法》的有關規定，[the husband]作為[the Deceased]的丈夫，對其名下財產享有法定繼承權。

特此鑒證！

[Chops of the firm and
Signatures of the solicitors]

2014年12月19日”

(g) Such document is not satisfactory. A Certificate of Inheritance should be issued by a government officer, usually 公證員 but not solicitor(s).  If it was an affidavit of law, it fails to comply almost all the requirements stated in paragraph 253 of the Guide to NCPP.

Other Application: Rule 30 NCPR

(h) Should the husband (residing in PRC) wish to authorize the solicitor (staying in HK) to make the application, he needs to rely on rule 30 NCPR.  Such arrangement is common and he should execute a power of attorney in Specified Form L3.1 (“L3.1”), not the 委托書 having filed.

(i) If L3.1 was properly completed and filed, the solicitor could prepare the supporting affirmation, N2.1 and N4.1 in his name.  The husband could skip the trouble to (come to Hong Kong to) take the oath and so forth.

(j) If the 委托書 was only meant to be a retainer between the husband and the solicitor, it needed not be filed.

The Applicant

(k) The husband has to prove that he is the lawful husband of the Deceased.  The marriage certificate (with authentication, if appropriate) should be produced.  The said 法律鑒證書 is not the usual evidence accepted by the Probate Registry. Paragraphs 213 to 217 of the Guide to NCPP are referred to.

Supporting affirmation, N2.1 and N4.1

(l) The preparation and execution of the supporting affirmation, N2.1 and N4.1 are unsatisfactory.

(m) In the supporting affirmation of the husband, he did not execute[3] it. Although the solicitor did sign thereon, it is not entirely clear as to whether he was the interpreter.

“{本人王從安，任職律師，律師事務所九龍深水埗汝州街218號長安大厦7樓E室，謹以至誠確認本人諳熟中文的國語方言及中文，本人已將本文件內容向宣誓人 [the husband] 作真實明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會將即將為其監誓的非宗教式誓詞向其傳譯。

此項非宗教式宣誓於（25/12/2014）	）
在（九龍旺角彌敦道677號恆生旺角	）
大厦12字樓1201-1203室）曾鼐光律	）
師行作出，是經由（曾鼐光律師）作出	）
傳譯，而此傳譯員亦已先行確認，	）	[signed by the
他已將本文件內容向宣誓人作出真實	）	solicitor]
明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會將本人	）
即將為宣誓人監誓的並會將本人即將	）
為宣誓人監誓的非宗教式誓言忠實向其	）
傳譯。	）
在本人面前作出,
[Signed by the
attesting solicitor ]
律師
（律師行名稱）”

(n) In N2.1, the husband did not execute it again. Although there is an execution page/clause within the document, it was left blank. 

“此項非宗教式宣誓，等等（見表格第N1.1款）
附註：
*請刪去不適用部分或作適當修改。

此項非宗教式宣誓於（25/12/2014）	）
在（九龍旺角彌敦道677號恆生旺角	）
大厦12字樓1201-1203室）曾鼐光律	）
師行作出，是經由（曾鼐光律師）作出	）
傳譯，而此傳譯員亦已先行確認，	）
他已將本文件內容向宣誓人作出真實	）
明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會將本人	）
即將為宣誓人監誓的並會將本人即將	）
為宣誓人監誓的非宗教式誓言忠實向其	）
傳譯。	）
在本人面前作出，
律師
（律師行名稱）”

(o) The solicitor signed on N2.1as “interpreter”. However, a closer look reviews that he in fact affirmed that he had explained the document to he himself, not the husband.

“{本人 (王從安) ，任職律師，律師事務所九龍深水埗汝州街218號長安大厦7樓E室，謹以至誠確認本人諳熟英文本地方言及中文，本人已將本文件及該清單的內容向宣誓人王從安作真實明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會將即將為其監誓的非宗教式誓詞忠實向其傳譯。

此項非宗教式宣誓於（25/12/2014）	）
在（九龍旺角彌敦道677號恆生旺角	）
大厦12字樓1201-1203室）曾鼐光律	）
師行作出，是經由（王從安律師）作出	）
傳譯，而此傳譯員亦已先行確認，	）	[signed by the
他已將本文件內容向宣誓人作出真實	）	solicitor]
明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會將本人譯，並會將本人	）
即將為宣誓人監誓的並會將本人即將	）
為宣誓人監誓的非宗教式誓言忠實向其	）
傳譯。	）
在本人面前作出,
[Signed by the
attesting solicitor]
律師
（律師行名稱）”

(p) There are problems in N4.1.

(q) The husband did not sign on it. Instead, the solicitor did so.

(r) The attesting solicitor did not sign on the exhibit.

(s) Finally, I have a further “redundant execution” by the solicitor at the end of the document.

“此項非宗教式宣誓於（25/12/2014）	）
在（九龍旺角彌敦道677號恆生旺角	）
大厦12字樓1201-1203室）曾鼐光	）
律師行作出，是經由（曾鼐光律師）作	）
出傳譯，而此傳譯員亦已先行確	）	[signed by the
認，他已將本文件內容向宣誓人作	）	solicitor]
出真實明確及清晰可聞的傳譯，並會	）
將本人即將為宣誓人監誓的並會將	）
本人即將為宣誓人監誓的非宗教式	）
誓言忠實向其傳譯。	）
在本人面前作出,
[Signed by the
attesting solicitor]
律師
（律師行名稱）”

15.  With the above in mind, I believe that it is difficult, if not impossible, to persuade the court to exercise his discretion to waive the requirement under the relevant rules and practices, otherwise it would amount to a complete disregard of almost all of them.  It is important to distinguish the difference between difficulties in complying with the same and unaware of them/submitting application without checking.

Conclusion

16.  To conclude, the application is dismissed, without prejudice to a new one to be submitted by the husband or his attorney.