WONG CHIU WING v. WONG SIU WAH

HCMP 1582/2019

[2021] HKCFI 1330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1582 OF 2019

____________

_____________

_______________________

DECISION ON COSTS

_______________________

1.  I refer to my Decision of 14 October 2020. The matter has since been settled. I am now requested to deal with the part of the costs that was reserved on the last occasion.

2.  I have considered parties’ submissions.  I agree that, despite the settlement, P is the effective winner.  I also agree that P’s claim for costs against D was made under the 3^rd class of cases referred to in Re Buckton [1907] 2 Ch 406[1], a class where the application to the court is made by a beneficiary but is, in substance although not in form, an adverse claim made in hostile litigation.  I accept Mr Ho’s submissions that the costs should not be paid out of the estate.  I order that the costs concerned should be paid by D.

3.  On quantum, I find the total sum of HK$276,450 excessive.  I find Items C1 and C2 (attendance on client and the other side) of 20 hours in total in particular excessive.  I also find Item D1 (12 hours of preparation of documents) in particular excessive.  Adopting a broad brush approach, I assess the total costs at HK$130,000.  This is on top of the sum of HK$70,000 summarily assessed on the last occasion.

HCMP 1582/2019

[2020] HKCFI 2680

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1582 OF 2019

____________

_____________

_____________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

1.  This is the first hearing of P’s Originating Summons dated 25 September 2019 for an order that:-

(a)  D do within 14 days provide P with a true and perfect inventory and account of the estate of the Deceased (the “Estate”) as verified by affidavit;

(b)  There be inspection of all supporting documents in relation to the said accounts within 14 days thereafter;

(c)  Further or alternatively, D be removed as an administrator of the Estate, and P (or other person(s) as the Court thinks fit) be appointed as the administratrix of the Estate.

2.  D and the Deceased were husband and wife.  P is their only daughter.

3.  The Deceased died intestate on 21 September 2011.

4.  The main asset which the Deceased held prior to her death is the family home situated at the 1^st and 2^nd Floors, Block C, Jade Forest Villa, 74 Tung Tsz, Tai Po, New Territories (the “Property”).  The Deceased is the sole registered legal owner of the Property.

5.  Letters of administration in respect of the Estate was granted to D on 1 February 2018.

6.  P has between February 2018 and January 2019 repeatedly demanded and requested D to give her information on the Estate and D’s administration thereof.  D has failed to.

7.  There is no need for this Court to go into details of D’s conduct in that regard.  At §20 of his written submissions, Mr Chan, Counsel for D, “concedes that a better account can and should be rendered…”.

8.  Having considered the evidence, I agree that the concession is correctly made.

9.  I have no hesitation in granting the relief sought as set out at §§1(a) and (b) above.

10.  In respect of the further/alternative relief of removal of D as the administrator of the Estate, I bear in mind the following matters:

(a)  the ownership of the Property is in dispute. P’s understanding is that the Property was the private asset of the Deceased as a matter of spousal asset arrangement.  She avers that it had all along been intended between the Deceased and D that the Deceased would own the Property, whereas D would own the family motoring business;

(b)  on the other hand, D’s evidence is that despite the Deceased being the sole legal owner of the Property, she in fact held the Property on constructive and resulting trust in his favour;

(c)  this is not the appropriate occasion for the resolution of the conflict;

(d)  the Estate does not appear to be substantial. The costs of its administration will bear upon the interests of the beneficiaries, and is an important consideration;

(e)  at this stage, not even the inventory of the Estate has been rendered.  It is in my view premature to consider the issue of D’s removal and the appointment of alternative.  I bear in mind in particular the fact that if a professional is to be appointed in D’s place, substantial costs will be involved;

(f)  I note also that no nomination of alternative has been placed before me.

11.  In the circumstances, I will adjourn P’s application for D’s removal pending the rendering and inspection of the inventory and account.  I grant parties 14 days to file evidence on nomination of alternative administrator.  That does not preclude P from proposing herself.

12.  On the question of costs, I see force in Mr Ho’s submissions that costs of today’s hearing should be to P as she has got substantially what she sought.  I so order, which I summarily assess at HK$70,000.  The costs of the Originating Summons are otherwise reserved.