遺產管理人失職後續費用承擔？申請部分獲批

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Leung Wing Hong v Leung Yiu Cho - 法院：高等法院原訟法庭 (Court of First Instance, CFI) - 法官：朱佩瑩法官 (Hon B Chu J) - 判決日期：2018年7月6日 ### 案情摘要 本案源於梁金華（已故）的遺產管理事宜。原訟法庭早前於2016年8月11日頒下判決（「判決」），命令遺產管理人（被告）在三個月內提交一份真實及完整的遺產清單及帳目（「清單」）。被告未能遵守該命令，導致原告申請恢復原訴傳票，並根據《高等法院規則》第45號命令第8條發出傳票，要求委任一名獨立人士編製清單。在聆訊前夕，被告同意辭任遺產管理人，並同意委任一名獨立專業人士接替。本判決旨在處理新管理人的委任、編製清單的費用及原訴傳票和第45號命令傳票的訟費問題。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議包括：應委任哪位專業人士作為新的遺產管理人，以及其費用上限；編製遺產清單的費用應由遺產承擔還是由被告個人承擔；以及原告恢復原訴傳票和根據《高等法院規則》第45號命令第8條發出的傳票的訟費應如何判決。被告方認為其行為並無壓迫性或不良動機，不應支付懲罰性訟費。 ### 判決理由 法官在分析中指出，遺產管理人的委任應以其在遺產管理方面的經驗為主要考量，並應考慮費用效益。法官認為，由於遺產規模較小，現階段無需法證會計師，故應委任律師而非會計師。在兩名律師候選人中，葉律師（Mr Ip）在遺產管理方面經驗更豐富，且願意設定費用上限，故獲委任。關於編製清單的費用，法官引用了 Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415 一案，確認編製清單是遺產管理人的職責，相關費用應由遺產承擔。至於訟費，法官考慮到被告未能遵守命令，導致案件延誤17個月，其行為構成延誤，故命令被告個人支付原告恢復原訴傳票的彌償基準訟費。然而，由於原告未能就要求被告個人支付清單編製費用一事勝訴，且第45號命令傳票所尋求的濟助可透過恢復原訴傳票獲得，故原告須支付被告就第45號命令傳票的訟費。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了 Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415 一案，該案確立了遺囑執行人（或遺產管理人）有責任保持清晰準確的帳目，並在被要求時隨時提供，因此編製此類帳目的費用應視為遺產管理費用的一部分。 ### 裁決與命令 法庭裁定委任葉律師（Mr Alfred Ip）為新的遺產管理人，其費用上限為《遺囑認證及遺產管理條例》（香港法例第10章）第60條規定的1%或其報價中較低者。編製遺產清單的費用由遺產承擔。被告須以彌償基準（indemnity basis）個人支付原告恢復原訴傳票的訟費。原告須支付被告就第45號命令傳票的訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本案強調了遺產管理人未能遵守法庭命令的後果，即使最終同意辭任，仍可能因延誤而需承擔個人訟費。同時，法庭在委任新管理人時，會綜合考慮其經驗、費用效益及是否願意設定費用上限。此外，編製遺產清單是遺產管理的基本職責，其費用通常由遺產承擔，而非由未能履行職責的管理人個人承擔，除非有特殊情況。 --- ### 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 Wing Hong v Leung Yiu Cho - Court: Court of First Instance (CFI) - Judge: Hon B Chu J - Date of Judgment: 6 July 2018 ### Factual Background This case concerns the administration of the estate of Leung Kam Wah (deceased). The Court of First Instance previously ordered the administrator (the Defendant) on 11 August 2016 to produce a true and perfect inventory and account ("Inventory") of the Estate within three months. The Defendant failed to comply with this order, leading the Plaintiff to apply to restore the originating summons and issue a summons under Order 45 rule 8 of the Rules of the High Court, seeking the appointment of an independent person to prepare the Inventory. On the eve of the hearing, the Defendant agreed to be removed as administrator and to the appointment of an independent professional. This decision addresses the appointment of a new administrator, the fees for preparing the Inventory, and the costs of the originating summons and the Order 45 Summons. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute included: which professional should be appointed as the new administrator and their fee cap; whether the costs for preparing the Inventory should be borne by the Estate or personally by the Defendant; and how the costs of the Plaintiff's restored originating summons and the Order 45 Summons should be awarded. The Defendant argued that his conduct was not oppressive or motivated by ulterior motives, and therefore should not be subject to punitive costs. ### Ratio Decidendi The judge's analysis highlighted that the appointment of an administrator should primarily consider their experience in estate administration and cost-effectiveness. Given the small size of the Estate, a forensic accountant was deemed unnecessary at this stage, leading to the preference for a solicitor over an accountant. Between the two solicitor candidates, Mr Ip was found to have more experience in estate administration and offered a fee cap, thus he was appointed. Regarding the costs of preparing the Inventory, the judge, citing Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415, affirmed that preparing accounts is a duty of an administrator, and such expenses are part of administration costs, to be borne by the Estate. For costs, the judge noted the Defendant's failure to comply with the order, causing a 17-month delay, and ordered the Defendant to personally pay the Plaintiff's costs of the restored originating summons on an indemnity basis. However, as the Plaintiff failed to secure an order for the Defendant to personally pay for the Inventory preparation costs, and the relief sought in the Order 45 Summons could have been obtained through the restored originating summons, the Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs for the Order 45 Summons. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415, which established that it is the duty of an executor (or administrator) to keep clear and accurate accounts and to be ready to render them when called upon, and thus the expenses for keeping such accounts should be part of the costs of administration. ### Decision & Orders The court ordered the appointment of Mr Alfred Ip as the new administrator, with his fees capped at 1% of the gross value of the Estate as per section 60 of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap 10) or his quoted rates, whichever is lower. The fees for preparing the Inventory are to be borne by the Estate. The Defendant was ordered to personally pay the Plaintiff's costs of the restored originating summons on an indemnity basis. The Plaintiff was ordered to pay the Defendant's costs of the Order 45 Summons. ### Key Takeaways This judgment underscores the consequences of an administrator's failure to comply with court orders; even if they eventually agree to resign, they may still be personally liable for costs due to delay. The court, when appointing a new administrator, considers experience, cost-effectiveness, and willingness to cap fees. Furthermore, preparing an inventory is a fundamental duty of estate administration, and its costs are typically borne by the Estate, not personally by a defaulting administrator, unless specific circumstances dictate otherwise. --- ### 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.