Disputes concerning trusts, estates and succession involve involved multi-tiered and multi-pronged litigation, whether consecutively or simultaneously. Issues can arise as to the propriety of raising similar (or even identical) arguments in different proceedings. This was highlighted in the recent decision of Chen Yue Jia James v. Chen Maria [2026] HKCFI 508, concerning a substantial, multi-million dollar estate.
There were 2 separate actions: one involved disputes concerning validity of the Wills of the Deceased (the “Probate Proceedings”), and another concerned the validity of various inter vivos transfers by the Deceased and whether the relevant assets were held on trust for the Deceased (the “Asset Proceedings”). In the Asset Proceedings, the Plaintiff sought to strike out the defence and counterclaim as an abuse of process, arguing that the defendant’s case was inconsistent with her stance in the probate proceedings, amounted to a collateral attack on the probate judgment, and raised issues that could and should have been litigated earlier (“Striking Out Application”). He also applied for summary judgment (“Summary Judgment Application”).
The Court rejected both the Striking Out Application and the Summary Judgment Application, and ruled in favour of the Defendant. The Court held that ownership of the disputed assets was never in issue in the probate proceedings, and no findings had been made on that question. The defendant’s present case was not plainly inconsistent with her earlier position, nor was it a clear Henderson v Henderson abuse. The “Common Understanding” and the intention of the Deceased behind the transfers were fact‑sensitive matters unsuitable for summary disposal. The Defendant’s defence could not be said to be unbelievable, and the dispute must proceed to trial.
Key Takeaways
- Abuse‑of‑process strike‑outs remain exceptional. Abuse of process has a high threshold which requires a party to show a clear and obvious misuse of the court’s process when seeking to strike-out a claim for an abuse of process. Mere inconsistency or the possibility that an issue could have been raised in earlier proceedings is not enough.
- Stance in probate proceedings could affect subsequent litigation. Although the Plaintiff did not succeed in the present matter, it bears reminding that the stance of a party on earlier probate litigation could have an impact on subsequent proceedings brought by the estate of the Deceased. Legal representatives should be careful when taking instructions and bear these ramifications in mind when setting out their client’s cases in probate disputes.
- Summary judgment difficult in family context. This case again reaffirms the difficulties of obtaining summary judgment in a family (as opposed to commercial) context, where many agreements or understandings are unwritten and remain fertile ground for fact-specific disputes to be determined at trial.
Read the full judgment here: https://legalref.judiciary.hk/lrs/common/ju/ju_frame.jsp?DIS=176715&currpage=T
Counsel:
Mr William Wong SC, Mr Kerby Lau and Mr Joshua Yeung (instructed by Hugill & Ip) for the Defendant.
