Before: Hon Lam VP and Chu JA in Court Date of Hearing: 20 2018 Date of Judgment: 20 2018 ________________ JUDGMENT ________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Au-Yeung J of 23 October 2017 in HCED 1/2013. HCED 1/2013 is an appeal brought by the appellants as executors of the estate of Tang Wing Cheung, deceased [“the Estate”] against the determination of the Commissioner of Estate Duty on the estate duty payable in respect of the Estate. The Deceased passed away in April 1997. A substantial part of the Estate was converted into a Promissory Note before the death of the Deceased. Initially, the disagreement between the executors and the Commissioner revolved around the location of the Promissory Note. In February 2011, the executors claimed for the first time that the interest in the Promissory Note had indeed been assigned to a person called Silas Githinji in consideration of an investment in a mining project in Kenya. trial, the judge rejected the executors’ case on the assignment. In the judgment, she found that the assignment was inherently improbable, the witnesses called by the executors to be unreliable in terms of proof of the alleged assignment and she was not satisfied that the
Before: Hon Lam VP and Chu JA in Court Date of Hearing: 20 2018 Date of Judgment: 20 2018 ________________ JUDGMENT ________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment of Au-Yeung J of 23 October 2017 in HCED 1/2013. HCED 1/2013 is an appeal brought by the appellants as executors of the estate of Tang Wing Cheung, deceased [“the Estate”] against the determination of the Commissioner of Estate Duty on the estate duty payable in respect of the Estate. The Deceased passed away in April 1997. A substantial part of the Estate was converted into a Promissory Note before the death of the Deceased. Initially, the disagreement between the executors and the Commissioner revolved around the location of the Promissory Note. In February 2011, the executors claimed for the first time that the interest in the Promissory Note had indeed been assigned to a person called Silas Githinji in consideration of an investment in a mining project in Kenya. trial, the judge rejected the executors’ case on the assignment. In the judgment, she found that the assignment was inherently improbable, the witnesses called by the executors to be unreliable in terms of proof of the alleged assignment and she was not satisfied that the
CAMP000069_2017.docx