陳麗琴 對 陳麗華

HCCA 2993/2022

[2024] HKCFI 2512

香港特別行政區

高等法院

原訟法庭

知會備忘編號2022年第2993號

_________________

_________________

_________________

判 決 書

1.  本案的提出警告人陳麗華女士於2023年7月5日存檔傳票(「該傳票」)，申請剔除其妹陳麗琴女士的知會備忘編號HCCA2993/2022。聆案官黃健棠(「聆案官」)於2024年4月10日接納陳麗華女士該傳票的申請，並作出以下的命令(「該命令」):

(1)  剔除知會備忘登記人於2022年6月10日存檔法院的知會備忘編號HCCA2993/2022，該知會備忘編號即時生效；

(2)  為免生疑問，知會備忘登記人存檔法院的知會備忘編號 HCCA2872/2022，HCCA6799/2022，HCCA1786/2023 及HCCA3473/2023亦即時失效；

(3)  提出警告人在HCAG6319/2022申請中，如能證實她的承辦權，法院可向她發出授予書；

(4)  提出警告人須在獲發出授予書後的七天內通知知會備忘登記人；

(5)  本知會備忘案件的訟費，包括已保留的訟費及今天聆訊的大律師證書，循簡易程序評估訟費為港幣208,800 元，由知會備忘登記人支付予提出警告人。

2.  陳麗琴女士不服聆案官的決定，於2024年4月16日發出上訴通知書。

3.  陳麗琴女士並在2024年7月23日發出傳票，申請暫緩執行該命令。聆案官於2024年8月8日駁回申請，並命令陳麗琴女士支付陳麗華女士港幣$11,600訟費。陳麗琴女士於2024年8月15日發出上訴通知書，申請上訴聆案官拒絕暫緩執行的命令(「拒絕暫緩執行令」)。

4.  本席於2024年9月12日審理陳麗琴女士就該命令的上訴，聽罷雙方陳詞之後押後裁決。

5.  徐韻華法官於2024年10月7日指示雙方排期由本席審理陳麗琴女士就拒絕暫緩執行令的上訴。

6.  結果，本席在2024年11月29日處理有關上訴。

7.  在這判決書中，本席會一併就陳麗琴女士的上述兩項上訴作出裁決。

8.  陳麗琴女士花了大篇幅指出聆案官林林總總的錯誤，這是不必要的。根據確立原則，本席會以重審方式處理該傳票及陳麗琴女士申請暫緩執行該命令的傳票。同時，若然本席覺得適合，本席有權採納聆案官的判案理由。

背景事實

9.  陳麗華女士和陳麗琴女士是兩姊妹，已故的陳己勝先生(「死者」)是她們的弟弟。死者有一個妻子及一個女兒。女兒是一名中學生。

10.  死者於2021年10月6日病逝。在他逝世前兩天，即2021年10月4日，他立下他最後的遺囑 (「2021年遺囑」)，委任陳麗華女士作為他的唯一遺囑執行人，並把所有他的遺產饋贈陳麗華女士。

11.  在2022年5月12日，陳麗華女士向高等法院申請遺產認證。

12.  在2022年6月10日，陳麗琴女士存檔該知會備忘。

13.  在2022年9月21日，陳麗華女士向陳麗琴女士發出警告，要求陳麗琴女士於八天內呈交應訴書，列出她在死者的遺產中她的任何對立權益，或提出反對理由反對陳麗華女士承辦死者的遺產。

14.  陳麗琴女士於2022年9月30日存檔的《警告應訴書》中，列出以下六個理由：

(1)  爸爸陳立吉生前承諾本人在他過身後，給100,000本人；

(2)  爸爸過身後，每名兄弟姊妹均有30,000 ，本人未取；

(3)  弟弟陳己勝在生前向本人借款250,000 ，答應歸還300,000；

(4)  爸爸陳立吉生前要求本人每月給$3000作為供富榮樓花園九座12樓C；

(5)  陳麗華聯同好友王佩詩，疑騙取弟弟陳己勝500幾萬；

(6)  陳麗華疑向警方作出虛假聲明。

有關法律原則

15.  在 Fok Po Nam v HSBC Trustee (Hong Kong) Ltd [2018] 1 HKC 567中，周家明法官(當時官階)就《無爭議遺囑認證規則》第10A章第44條中有關知會備忘登記人的條款有以下清晰的闡釋:

“18. … In my view, the question of what interest a person must have in order to justify the entering of a caveat by that person should be approached from a consideration of the purposes and effect of a caveat. In this regard, the proper starting point must be the statutory scheme under the PAO and NCPR governing the entry and disposition of caveats.

19. Section 45 of the PAO states that:-

“A caveat against a grant of probate or administration may be entered in the Registry.”

20. Rule 44 of the NCPR, so far as relevant, provides as follows:

“(1) Any person who wishes to ensure that no grant is sealed without notice to himself may enter a caveat in the Registry.

(4) Except as otherwise provided by this rule, a caveat shall remain in force for 6 months from the date on which it is entered and shall then cease to have effect, without prejudice to the entry of a further caveat or caveats.

(5) The Registrar shall maintain an index of caveats entered in the Registry and on receiving an application for a grant, he shall cause the index to be searched.

(6) The Registrar shall again cause the index to be searched before he shall allow any grant to be sealed and shall not allow any grant to be sealed if there is an effective caveat in respect thereof:

Provided that no caveat shall operate to prevent the sealing of a grant on the day on which the caveat is entered.

(7) A caveat may be warned by the issue from the Registry of a warning in the specified form at the instance of any person interested (in this rule called "the person warning") which shall state his interest and, if he claims under a will, the date of the will, and shall require the caveator to give particulars of any contrary interest which he may have in the estate of the deceased; and every warning shall be served on the caveator.

(9) A caveator having an interest contrary to that of the person warning may, within 8 days of service of the warning upon him inclusive of the day of such service, or at any time thereafter if no affidavit has been filed under paragraph (11) of this rule, enter an appearance in the Registry by filing an appropriate specified form…

(10) A caveator having no interest contrary to that of the person warning but wishing to show cause against the sealing of a grant to that person may, within 8 days of service of the warning upon him inclusive of the day of such service, or at any time thereafter if no affidavit has been filed under paragraph (11) of this rule, enter an appearance to the warning and issue and serve a summons for directions, which shall be returnable before the Registrar.

(11) If the time limited for appearance has expired and the caveator has not entered an appearance, the person warning may file in the Registry an affidavit showing that the warning was duly served and that he has not received a summons for directions under the last foregoing paragraph, and thereupon the caveat shall cease to have effect.

(12) Unless the Registrar otherwise directs-

(b) any caveat in respect of which an appearance to a warning has been entered shall remain in force until the commencement of a probate action”.

21. From the above provisions, it is can be seen that:-

(1) The effect of entering a caveat is that no grant relating to the estate of the deceased can be sealed without notice to the caveator.

(2) The provisions in sub-rules (5) and (6) ensure that no grant would be sealed by the Registrar where there is an effective caveat in force in relation to the estate of that deceased.

(3) By issuing a warning, the person warning can compel the caveator to state whether he has any contrary interest “in the estate of the deceased” (sub-rule (7)).

(4) The caveator, if he has a contrary interest, is then required to enter an appearance by filing an appropriate specified form. Pausing here, it may be noted that the specified form, namely, Form No.C1.4, requires him to set out “the interest of the caveator, stating the date of the Will, if any, under which such interest arises”.

(5) On the other hand, if the caveator has no contrary interest but wishes to show cause against the sealing of a grant to the person warning, he is required to issue and serve a summons for directions returnable before the Registrar.

22. In so far as the purposes of entering a caveat are concerned, in Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraph 23.05, the following is stated:-

“The following are some of the purposes for which a caveat may be entered:

(a) to give time to the caveator (objector) to make enquiries and to obtain such information as may enable him to determine whether or not there are grounds for opposing the grant;

(b) to give any person interested in the estate an opportunity of bringing any question arising in respect of the grant before the court on summons; and

(c) as a step preliminary to a probate claim, or to the issuing of a citation (notification).”

23. Although the purposes mentioned in the above passage are not exhaustive, it is nevertheless instructive to note they relate to matters such as whether a grant of representation of the estate of the deceased should be made, to whom the grant should be made, and possibly the terms of the grant. Generally, these are matters which a person having some interest in the estate of the deceased may legitimately be concerned with, but not someone who has no interest in the estate.

24. It is clear from Rule 44(7) that the legislature envisages that both the person warning and the caveator having a contrary interest would have some interest “in the estate of the deceased”. As earlier mentioned, if the caveator has, or asserts, an interest contrary to that of the person warning, he is required, under sub-rule (9), to enter an appearance in the Probate Registry by filing Form No.C1.4 (being the relevant specified form), and that form requires him to set out his interest. Examples of persons who may enter an appearance as having a contrary interest include an executor, legatee or devisee, the personal representative of a legatee or devisee, any other person claiming an interest under a will or codicil, a person claiming to be entitled to share in, or interested in, the estate of the deceased on his intestacy or partial intestacy, or the personal representative of any such person (see Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraphs 23.64 and 23.65).

25. In my view, the same interest requirement must also be applicable to a caveator who does not have, or assert, any contrary interest to the person warning. An example would be where both are entitled to a grant in the same degree (see Parry & Kerridge, The Law of Succession, 12^th Ed, at paragraph 19-02(ii)). At the time of the entry of a caveat, the caveator would not necessarily know whether there will be any person warning. Neither would the caveator necessarily know, at that time, that he has, or does not have, any interest contrary to that of the person warning.

26. It cannot, I believe, have been the intention of the legislature that a person who does not have, or assert, any interest in the estate of the deceased should be entitled to be given prior notice of the sealing of a grant in respect of the estate of the deceased, or be entitled to issue a summons for directions so that his demands can be considered or entertained prior to the sealing of the grant, thereby enabling or permitting any busybody to interfere in the process of applying for and obtaining a grant of representation by the proper personal representative of the deceased.

27. Support for the view that a person must have some interest in the estate of the deceased to justify the entering of a caveat can be found in the standard textbooks on probate law and practice. In Tristram and Coote’s Probate Practice, at paragraph 23.11, it is stated that “[a] caveat (objection) can be entered by any person having or asserting an interest in the estate of the deceased, either by the party himself or his probate practitioner”.

28. In Christopher Sherrin, Probate Practice in Hong Kong, 3^rd Ed, at paragraph 5.053, it is stated that “[t]he applicant will have to show an interest in the estate sufficient to justify the caveat.”

16.  明顯地，知會備忘的登記人必須就遺產中持有對立權益。

17.  在Re Lau Hoi To (劉海濤), Deceased [2022] 5 HKC 347，朱佩瑩法官解釋知會備忘錄的作用：

“28. As stated in paragraph 23.6 in Tristram and Coote‘s Probate Practice, 37^th Ed, the steps taken after the entry of a caveat, the warning or notice to appear issued against the caveator by the party whose application for a grant has been stopped, and the appearance to the warning by the caveator will disclose the names and address of the parties and their respective interests in the estate of the deceased. With this information it is open to either of them, if their interests conflict, to commence a probate claim against the other for the purpose of establishing their own claim.”

分析/討論

18.  陳麗琴女士在《警告應訴書》中提出的六個理由均不能顯示她在死者的遺產中持有任何對立權益。即使本席全數接納該六個理由中的指控，陳麗琴女士只可以對死者遺產作出申索，這也不代表她在死者遺產中持有任何對立權益: 見 Re Lau Hoi To, Deceased第25段。

19.  陳麗琴女士在2023年8月31日作出的第一份長達47頁的誓章，內容包含她對不同的家人包括陳麗華女士各種空洞的指控。就有關她聲稱她的爸爸及死者的欠款和她聲稱就死者的物業的供款的指控完全欠缺細節及文件證供支持，實在難以令人信服。

20.  陳麗琴女士在她的誓章中提出死者在2019年6月5日立了一份遺囑(「2019年遺囑」)，委任她為2019年遺囑的執行人及受托人，並饋贈陳麗琴女士他遺產中的香港車位和香港公司。該2019年遺囑的副本也存檔成為證物。

21.  在她的誓章中，陳麗琴女士質疑2021年遺囑的真確性及合法性。她對陳麗華女士及準備2021年遺囑的律師行職員作出許多嚴重的指控。她又對死者在訂立2021年遺囑時的精神行為能力提出疑問。

22.  在聆訊中，陳麗琴女士向本席強調2019年遺囑才是死者有效的遺囑。在該遺囑中，她是獲得死者的饋贈的。故此，她不明白為何她沒有對立權益。

23.  首先，陳麗琴女士在其警告應訴書中完全沒有提及2019年遺囑，以支持她持有對立權益的指控。

24.  再者，她在誓章中對2021年遺囑的種種質疑全都是軟弱乏力的，並無實質證據支持。明顯地，2021年遺囑已經取代死者過往的遺囑，包括2019年遺囑。

25.  更重要的是既然陳麗琴女士真誠相信她對陳麗華女士及律師行職員的種種指控，她就應該早早作出適當的法律行動，包括展開遺囑認證訴訟，提出申索，以證明她的指控成立及獲得接納並可獲得她法律上應該得到的結果。

26.  陳麗琴女士的知會備忘在2022年6月10日存檔，至今已超過兩年。她更在聆案官席前表明她不會開展遺囑認證訴訟。雖然陳麗琴女士在2024年9月12日的聆訊中向本席表示她或會提出遺囑認證訴訟，但她直至今天並沒有作出任何行動。在聆訊中，陳麗琴女士更向本席表示她希望陳麗華女士一方和她討論和解。

27.  另外，陳麗琴女士在其誓章中對陳麗華女士作出許多人身攻擊，指出她的誠信有問題。本席並不認為她的指控有任何實質有力的證供支持。無論如何，這些指控無助她訂立她在死者遺產中任何對立權益，也和遺囑認證沒有任何關係。她應該採取合適的法律行動，作出相關的申請。

結論及命令

28.  基於上述原因，本席認為陳麗琴女士的知會備忘並不是發揮它的正當功能，而是濫用法庭程序。聆案官有充分理據剔除她的知會備忘。死者逝世已逾三年，陳麗華女士的遺囑認證不應該再被耽誤。本席認同聆案官作出該命令的決定，駁回陳麗琴女士的上訴。至於陳麗琴女士的暫緩執行的申請也站不住腳，本席必須同樣地駁回她就暫緩執行令的上訴。

29.  作為敗訴的一方，陳麗琴女士必須支付陳麗華女士一方她兩項上訴招致的所有訟費，包括以往保留的訟費。假若雙方未能夠金額達成協議，則交由聆案官評定。這是一個暫准的命令。雙方可以在21天內以傳票形式提出更改申請，否則在限期過後將會成為絕對命令。

30.  最後本席感謝代表陳麗華女士的鄭大律師的協助。