登記結婚是否撤銷傳統婚姻前的遺囑？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：LEUNG SAI LUN ROBERT 及其他人 訴 LEUNG MAY LING 及其他人 - 法院：香港特別行政區終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：李國能首席法官、列顯倫常任法官、清成之常任法官、包致金常任法官、梅師賢非常任法官 - 判決日期：1999年1月29日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及一名已故男士的遺囑效力。該男士於1966年2月28日與第一答辯人根據中國傳統習俗結婚。1967年7月27日，他訂立了一份遺囑，將所有遺產留給他與第一任妻子所生的四名子女（即本案被告）。1985年6月18日，該男士與第一答辯人在婚姻登記處再次結婚，這次是根據《婚姻條例》（香港法例第181章）的規定。該男士於1996年3月21日去世，沒有訂立新的遺囑。本案的爭議點在於，1985年的登記結婚是否根據《遺囑條例》（香港法例第30章）第13(1)條的規定，導致1967年遺囑自動撤銷。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於《遺囑條例》第13(1)條中「其後結婚」(subsequent marriage) 一詞的正確解釋。上訴人（被告）認為，該條文不應包括根據《婚姻條例》第38條進行的登記結婚，因為當事人在此類婚姻之前已經通過傳統習俗結婚，其婚姻狀況並未改變。答辯人（原告）則主張，登記結婚構成「其後結婚」，應導致遺囑撤銷。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，根據《遺囑條例》第13(1)條，1985年的登記結婚確實撤銷了1967年的遺囑。法院認為，「其後結婚」一詞應按其普通語義解釋，不應引入額外的例外情況。儘管當事人已通過傳統習俗結婚，但根據《婚姻條例》進行的登記結婚仍具有法律效力，並帶來所有相關的法律後果。法院強調，立法機關旨在建立一套適用於所有婚姻的統一法律制度，並且《婚姻條例》第38條允許當事人進行登記結婚，這本身就具有法律意義，並非僅僅是儀式。此外，法院指出，這種解釋有助於提高法律的確定性並減少訴訟。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院一致駁回上訴，維持原訟法庭和上訴法庭的裁決，即1967年的遺囑因其後於1985年根據《婚姻條例》進行的登記結婚而被撤銷。上訴人須支付本案及下級法院的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了《遺囑條例》中關於結婚自動撤銷遺囑條文的廣泛適用性，即使當事人此前已根據傳統習俗結婚。法院強調了法律確定性的重要性，並指出立法機關傾向於建立統一的婚姻法律制度。判決還間接指出，根據《婚姻條例》第38條進行的登記結婚具有實質性的法律意義，不僅僅是確認現有關係，這對理解香港婚姻法律的發展具有重要意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: LEUNG SAI LUN ROBERT and Others v LEUNG MAY LING and Others - Court: Court of Final Appeal of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Li, Mr Justice Litton PJ, Mr Justice Ching PJ, Mr Justice Bokhary PJ and Sir Anthony Mason NPJ - Date of Judgment: 29 January 1999 ### Factual Background This case concerns the validity of a deceased's will. The deceased and the 1st respondent entered into a Chinese customary marriage on 28 February 1966. On 27 July 1967, the deceased executed a will, leaving his entire estate to his four children from his first marriage (the appellants). On 18 June 1985, the deceased and the 1st respondent married again at the marriage registry under the Marriage Ordinance (Cap. 181). The deceased died on 21 March 1996 without executing another will. The central issue was whether the 1985 registry marriage revoked the 1967 will by operation of section 13(1) of the Wills Ordinance (Cap. 30). ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was the proper construction of the phrase "subsequent marriage" in section 13(1) of the Wills Ordinance. The appellants (defendants) argued that this phrase should not include a registry marriage under section 38 of the Marriage Ordinance, as the parties were already married by customary rites, implying no change in marital status. The respondents (plaintiffs) contended that the registry marriage constituted a "subsequent marriage" and thus revoked the will. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that the 1985 registry marriage did revoke the 1967 will under section 13(1) of the Wills Ordinance. The Court reasoned that "subsequent marriage" should be interpreted according to its ordinary meaning, without implying additional exceptions. Despite the prior customary marriage, a registry marriage under the Marriage Ordinance has legal effect and carries all associated legal incidents. The Court emphasized the legislature's intent to establish a uniform system of law for all marriages and that a registry marriage under section 38 is a substantive legal act, not merely ceremonial. This interpretation also promotes legal certainty and reduces litigation. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal, upholding the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal that the 1967 will was revoked by the subsequent 1985 registry marriage under the Marriage Ordinance. The appellants were ordered to pay costs in this appeal and in the courts below. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the broad applicability of the Wills Ordinance's provision for automatic revocation of a will upon marriage, even when parties were previously married by customary rites. The Court underscored the importance of legal certainty and the legislative trend towards a unified system of marriage law. It also implicitly highlighted that a registry marriage under section 38 of the Marriage Ordinance carries significant legal implications beyond merely confirming an existing relationship, which is crucial for understanding the evolution of marriage law in Hong Kong. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.