RE TANG KAM FAI

HCMP 975/2026

[2026] HKCFI 4172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 975 OF 2026

_______________

_______________

_____________________________

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

_____________________________

1.  Before me was the ex-parte Originating Summons taken out on 17 June 2026 by the Applicant seeking an order vesting in the Applicant the legal title of the Remaining Portion of Sub-section 2 of Section B of Lot No 933 in Demarcation District No 125 (“the Subject Land”) pursuant to section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance Cap. 29.

2.  Section 45(e) of the Trustee Ordinance provides:

“45. Vesting orders of land

In any of the following cases, namely –

…

(e) where there is no personal representative of a deceased trustee who was entitled to or possessed of any interest in land, or where it is uncertain who is the personal representative of a deceased trustee who was entitled to or possessed of any interest in land;

…

the court may make an order (in this Ordinance called a vesting order) vesting the land or interest therein in any such person in any such manner and for any such estate or interest as the court may direct, or releasing or disposing of the contingent right to such person as the court may direct…”

3.  It is well established that the court may make a vesting order under section 45(e) in an ex parte application if there is clear evidence before the court justifying the making of such order, but the court must proceed cautiously and must examine the evidence presented by the applicant critically, and where there are gaps in the applicant’s evidence, the court should require the applicant to address them by satisfactory evidence or provide proper explanation as to why, despite the exercise of reasonable diligence, the applicant cannot adduce further evidence to deal with the evidentiary deficiencies; it should not be assumed that the court would rubber stamp such applications (see Re MAN KIN as theadministrator of the estate of MAN PAK CHUN, deceased  HCMP 2565/2014, unrep, 18 April 2016, Chow J (as the learned JA then was)).

4.  I am satisfied that the following facts deposed to in the Applicant’s affirmation filed on 17 June 2026 are proved:

a.  By his birth certificate, that the Applicant was born on20March 1954 and his parents were Tang Tak Sau and WongPo Chun;

b.  By the Assignment dated 12 June 1973 with Memorial No YL176324, that Sub-section 2 of Section B of Lot No 933 in Demarcation District No 125 was assigned to the Applicant by way of gift with Madam Chan Tai (“Madam Chan”) as trustee;

c.  As corroborated by the affirmation of Tang King Sing, a cousin of the Applicant, that Madam Chan was the 1^st wife of the Applicant’s father Tang Tak Sau;

d.  At the time of the said assignment (1973), the legal age for adulthood was 21 and hence the Applicant who was then 19 years old was a minor;

e.  As shown by the Re-Amended Statement of Claim in HCA 1986, A372 registered with Memorial No YL528062, the Order of Master Pang dated 9 December 1992 registered with Memorial No YL607988, the Order of Master O’Donnell dated 4 July 1994 with Memorial No YL607989, Deed Poll dated 31 August 1994 with Memorial No YL607990 and an Assignment dated 31 August 1994 with Memorial No YL607994, in settlement of the claim brought by one Tang Chiu Luen in the said action, among others, the Applicant and Madam Chan (respectively as the 3^rd and 4^th Defendants therein) sub-divided and then assigned portion of Sub-section 2 of Section B of Lot No 933 in Demarcation District  No 125 to Tang Chiu Luen and the remaining portion, which remained registered beneficially in the name of the Applicant with Madam Chan as the trustee, became the Subject Land; and

f.  By the Death Certificate of Madam Chan, that Madam Chan passed away in Pok Oi Hospital on 10 July 2014.

5.  As deposed to in the affirmation of Chan Yiu Fai, the Applicant’s solicitors have recently conducted a probate search in the Probate Registry and there was no record of any grant of probate or letters of administration having been issued in respect of the estate of Madam Chan.  There is thus no personal representative of Madam Chan.

6.  In the premises, this application falls within section 45(e) and it is appropriate to grant the vesting order.

7.  At the conclusion of the hearing, I therefore made an order in terms of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Originating Summons with no order as to costs.