In Chiang Lai Yuen v Chiang Chi Kin [2025] HKCFI 1979, H. Au-Yeung J re-examined the requirement of bringing all rival probate claims simultaneously as established in Re Estate of Payson Cha [2024] 2 HKLRD 1411 (the “Requirement”).

The deceased, the late Dr. Chiang Chen, was the founder of the Chen Hsong Group, and a well-known industrialist and philanthropist.

In the probate action the plaintiff (one of the deceased’s daughters) challenges the validity of a 2019 Will, which appointed the 1^st defendant (the deceased’s son) and the 2^nd Defendant (the deceased’s wife) as executors and bequeathed the estate equally to the wife and the seven children.

The plaintiff seeks to propound against the 2019 Will. She claims that an earlier 1991 Will, bequeathing the estate to a BVI non-profit organization, is valid, even though she does not seek an order for grant of probate of the 1991 Will because she is not in a position to do so (being neither an executrix nor a beneficiary).

The 1^st defendant sought to strike out the plaintiff’s action. Relying on the Requirement as established in Payson Cha, the 1^st defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claim is defective because she only seeks to invalidate the 1991 Will without advancing a positive case for probate of another will.

In dismissing the striking out application, the Court:

• reaffirmed the Requirement. However, it distinguished Payson Cha, where the plaintiff failed to commit to a positive case. Here, the plaintiff explicitly supports the 1991 Will’s validity.

• noted that the plaintiff has applied to serve a notice under RHC O.15 r.13A on all other interested parties, such that if they are minded to challenge any of the wills they can do so in the probate action. The Court would then be able to adjudicate on the matter once and for all to rule on which will should be admitted to probate.

• held that if it is found that the 1991 Will is valid, the finding would bind all the interested parties, and what would remain to be done is for the relevant executor(s) to apply for a grant under the Non-Contentious Probate Rules. The problem of “piece-meal adjudication” would not arise, and the Requirement is satisfied.

• held that the purpose of a proper probate action can be achieved here even though the probate action is commenced by a party who is not in a position to propound an earlier will.

The full judgment can be viewed here.