|
HCAP 11/2017
[2026] HKCFI 148
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE
PROBATE ACTION NO 11 OF 2017
________________________
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Order 76 of the Rules of the High Court
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE ESTATE OF YEE SHIU KAN (余紹簡), late of Flat 12A on 11th Floor, Cosmopolitan
Centre (formerly known as E.S.K Ho‑Tung Building), 760 Nathan Road, Kowloon, Hong Kong, Deceased
(the “Deceased”)
|
| |
and
|
| |
IN THE MATTER OF Letter of Administration of the estate of the deceased granted to the
1st Defendant under HCAG017144/2014 dated 30 December 2014
|
________________________
|
BETWEEN
|
| |
YEE KWOK SANG |
Plaintiff |
|
and
|
| |
YEE MO YI |
1st Defendant |
| |
YEE KWOK WING |
2nd Defendant |
| |
YEE MO TING |
3rd Defendant |
| |
YEE MO CHING |
4th Defendant |
________________________
| Before: |
Deputy High Court Judge Kent Yee in Court |
| Date of Hearing: |
10 December 2025 |
| Date of Judgment: |
10 December 2025 |
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
1. This is a probate action concerning the estate of Mr Yee
Shiu‑kan, the deceased (“the Deceased”). All the parties in this action are the children of the Deceased
and the plaintiff is the youngest child of the family of the Deceased.
2. The plaintiff brought this action primarily to seek to revoke
a grant of letters of administration in HCAG017144/2014 obtained by the 1st defendant, and to
seek an order that a will dated 11 July 2013 (“the Will”) be pronounced in solemn form. Finally, the
plaintiff asked for the grant of probate to be issued to him in respect of the Deceased’s estate pursuant to the
Will.
3. The 1st defendant, the second child of the
Deceased, has never responded to these proceedings. Pursuant to the order of this court dated 18 September
2025, the plaintiff has caused an advertisement of notice to the 1st defendant to be posted in a
Chinese local newspaper, published on 3 November 2025, and this court is satisfied that the 1st
defendant should be deemed to have notice of this trial hearing and opted not to be present. This court is
convinced that the trial should be proceeded with in her absence.
4. As regards the remaining defendants, all of them have filed
their acknowledgment of service and have indicated that they do not contest these proceedings.
5. The plaintiff himself testified and he further called one
Mr Lam Tak‑cheong to give testimony in support of his claim. Their evidence is not contradicted
by any contrary evidence and the evidence causes me no concern. There is no reason why I should not accept
their evidence in the entirety.
6. On their evidence, the Deceased was married to the mother of
the parties, namely Madam Chau. Madam Chau passed away in 1996 and the Deceased passed away in 2013. The
Deceased, on or about 11 July 2013, accompanied by the plaintiff went to the office of Messrs Tam & Partners
to execute the Will.
7. At the office, Mr Lam attended to the Deceased. Mr Lam,
who was a legal executive of the Plaintiff’s solicitors, explained to the Deceased the contents of the Will,
which was subsequently signed by the deceased. Mr Lam confirmed that the Deceased understood and approved
the content of the Will. Mr Lam confirmed that he had drafted the Will in accordance with the instruction
of the deceased. The Deceased passed away a few months later in the same year.
8. Under the Will, the plaintiff was appointed the executor of
the estate of the Deceased and the plaintiff is the beneficiary of the lion’s share of the estate, including a
residential property located in Mong Kok.
9. Unbeknownst to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant
applied with success for a grant of the letters of administration in 2014. Before the grant, the
1st defendant had never discussed with the plaintiff the administration of the estate of the
Deceased. She had never asked the plaintiff whether the Deceased had made any will.
10. Since the grant of the letters of administration, the
1st defendant has never administered the estate and she is nowhere to be found despite numerous
attempts made by the plaintiff.
11. The deceased passed away with the Will and hence he did
not die intestate. The validity of the Will is not challenged and there is no reason why the testamentary
intentions of the deceased manifested in the Will should not be given effect. The Will is a valid document
and the grant of the letters of administration should not have been made. The letters of administration fall to
be revoked.
12. On the other hand, the plaintiff is the executor appointed
under the Will and he should be granted the probate so that he can administer the estate pursuant to the Will. I
have no hesitation in pronouncing the Will in solemn form.
13. Since there is no costs application, I make no order as to
costs.
|
(Kent Yee) Deputy High Court Judge |
Mr Joshua Ngai, instructed by Messrs Au, Thong & Tsang, for the plaintiff
The 1st to 4th defendants were not represented and did not appear
|