ABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
CACV 62/2010 AND CACV 101/2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THEHONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGIONCOURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 62 AND 101 OF 2010(ON APPEAL FROM HCAP NO. 8 OF 2007)IN THE ESTATE OF KUNG,NINA
（龔如心）
, also known as NINAKUNG and NINA T. H. WANG, lateof Top Floor, Chinachem Golden Plaza,77 Mody Road, Tsimshatsui East,Kowloon, Hong Kong,Widow, DeceasedBETWEENCHINACHEM CHARITABLEFOUNDATION LIMITED
（華懋慈善基金有限公司）
Plaintiff andCHAN CHUN CHUEN
（陳振聰）
1st DefendantTHE SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE 2nd DefendantBefore: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon and Kwan JJA in CourtDates of Hearing: 10-13 January 2011Date of Handing Down Judgment: 14 February 2011J U D G M E N T
- 2 -
ABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon and Kwan JJA:1.
This is a joint judgment. Each member of the court has beenresponsible for initially drafting a part of this judgment. Nevertheless, the judgment is the considered judgment of all of us. This was an appeal from the judgment of Lam J given on 2 February 2010. The action before the judge wasa probate action in which the plaintiff sought orders that the court shouldpronounce in solemn form the will of the late Nina Wang dated 28 July 2002(“the 2002 will”) in which the plaintiff is named the beneficiary and against thevalidity of an alleged will dated 16 October 2006 (“the 2006 will”) in which thefirst defendant is named the beneficiary. The first defendant asked for ordersto the opposite effects. The judge found in favour of the plaintiff and againstthe first defendant, holding that the 2006 will was a forgery. He made ordersthat the plaintiff should have their costs on an indemnity basis save that theplaintiff’s costs in relation to 2 experts who had been called in respect of testamentary capacity were ordered to be paid out of the estate. He made anorder that the plaintiff should have 80% of its costs against the first defendant inrespect of the hearing on 17 March 2010. There were other ancillary orders asto costs.
Background
2.
The deceased, the late Nina Wang, had the title of the chairwomanof the Chinachem Group (“the group”). All the companies that were treated aspart of the group are private companies and are, therefore, not listed on thestock exchange. Various estimates of the value of those companies and theirinterests have been given and figures in the region of $100 billion have beenmentioned. The business of the group had been built up through the efforts of Nina Wang and her late husband, Teddy Wang. Teddy Wang was kidnapped
- 3 -
ABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
VABC
DE
FG
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
for the second time in 1990 and it would appear that despite indications of hisdeath and subsequent convictions of persons for murdering Teddy Wang,Nina Wang maintained for a long time that he was still alive.3.
The full background to this case can be gleaned not only from the judgment in the court below but also from the proceedings between Nina Wangand her father-in-law, Wang Din Shin. Those proceedings concluded in 2005with the judgment in the Court of Final Appeal (2005) 8 HKCFAR 387. Inthat judgment it was held that Teddy Wang’s will, which Nina Wang reliedupon, was valid. In the lower courts it had been found to have been forged.4.
What is not evident from the earlier proceedings, but was highlyrelevant in these proceedings, was Nina Wang’s involvement with the firstdefendant. The first defendant ran a fung shui school, Chun Yip Hing LungTong, and Nina Wang had been introduced to him in March 1992 as a fung shuimaster. There is no doubt that considerable sums of money passed fromNina Wang to the first defendant and further sums of money were paid assubscription monies for shares in a company started by the first defendant.5.
In 2002 Nina Wang executed the 2002 will. There is no disputein this case that that was a valid will. That will provided, in the first place, thatthe whole of Nina Wang’s estate was bequeathed to the plaintiff, a charitablefoundation jointly established by Teddy Wang and Nina Wang in 1988. Inparagraph 2 of the will it is said that the supervision of the plaintiff would beentrusted to a managing body formed by the Secretary General of the UnitedNations, the premier of the People’s Republic of China and the Chief Executiveof Hong Kong jointly. It was provided that the plaintiff should continue allprojects that it had undertaken. The wish was expressed in the will that thereshould be (a) Chinese prize(s) of worldwide significance, similar to that of theNobel Prize(s). Reference is made in paragraph 4 of the 2002 will to the
Search History:
Result 00 of 00
00 results for result for
p.
67. While the weight to be given to the 25 specimens (including the 20 for Chinachem Charitable Foundation v The Secretary for Justice
The curious court case of a hole-digging feng shui master and his claim on a USD 13 billion fortune...
5.3K
Reads
1
Readcasts
0
Embed Views
More From This User
Notes
Load more
