TAN CHENG GAY AND OTHERS v. TAN CHENG GAY AND ANOTHER
HTML content
FAMV No. 51 of 2014
IN THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 51 OF 2014 (CIVIL)
(ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL FROM CACV NO. 200 OF 2013)
_____________________
IN THE MATTER of a Joint Will in Chinese dated 6 February 2008 (“the Joint Will”) with a Joint Codicil in Chinese dated 8 May 2008 (“the Joint Codicil”) of TAN KIAM TOEN ( 陳劍敦 ), deceased (“the Deceased”) | |
and | |
IN THE MATTER of Order 85, rule 2 of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A, Laws of Hong Kong) and Sections 3 and 24A of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10, Laws of Hong Kong) |
_____________________
BETWEEN | ||
| TAN CHENG GAY | 1st Plaintiff | |
| TAN YOK KOON | 2nd Plaintiff | |
| TAN CHOO PIN | 3rd Plaintiff | |
| TAN CHIN HOON | 4th Plaintiff (Applicants) | |
| and | ||
| TAN CHOO SUAN | 1st Defendant (Respondent) | |
| SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE | 2nd Defendant |
_____________________
| Appeal Committee : Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Mr Justice Fok PJ |
| Date of Hearing and Determination : 4 February 2015 |
_____________________
DETERMINATION
_____________________
Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ:
1. In this application for leave to appeal concerning the true construction of a will, it was submitted that leave to appeal is as of right. We do not agree. In our view, the immediacy requirement set out in Chinachem Charitable Foundation Ltd v Chan Chun Chuen[1] is not met.
2. Mr Fung SC also seeks leave on the basis that a question of law of great general or public importance arises based on the common use of the Chinese phrase at the centre of the dispute as to the will’s true construction, namely, the Chinese phrase “名下 ... 的財産”, or “名下所有 ... 的財産”.
3. We are unable to accept that submission. The interpretation of such phrases is necessarily contextual so that resolution of their true construction in the present case cannot possibly settle the meaning of a like phrase appearing in the context of a different document. The construction is therefore case-specific and does not raise a question of great general or public importance.
4. However, the nature of the arguments having been explored at the hearing today, it appears to us that the true construction of the will poses particular difficulties and raises issues as to the proper scope and application of section 23B of the Wills Ordinance.[2] We grant leave on that basis.
5. Counsel having assured us that the appeal can without difficulty be dealt with in a day, we direct that it be heard on 29 September 2015.
| (R.A.V. Ribeiro) Permanent Judge | (Robert Tang) Permanent Judge | (Joseph Fok) Permanent Judge |
Mr Patrick Fung, SC and Mr. Johnny Ma instructed by Messrs Fairbairn Catley Low & Kong, for the 1st - 4th plaintiffs (applicants)
Ms. Lisa K Y Wong, SC and Mr. Derek Hu instructed by Messrs ONC Lawyers, for the 1st defendant (respondent)