bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

The Court of Appeal yesterday granted the son of the late founder of the Bossini clothing label total authority over a HK$330 million fund left to the tycoon's descendants.
Though no will exists, a  'letter of wishes' specified in what situations the inheritance left by textiles tycoon Law Ting-pong should be distributed - for example, to family members who were high academic achievers but in need of loans or sponsorship. 
However, it named second son Law Shuk-hoi the 'administrator' of these assets, to distribute them as he saw fit, 'without the need to give any reason'.
In a 2-1 judgment, the court ruled that Law Shuk-hoi was obliged to consider from time to time whether to distribute the assets but was not obliged to actually grant them. That overturned a Court of First Instance ruling from last July.
The debate centred on whether he had a 'mere power' - absolute authority to distribute the assets - or a 'trust power' , meaning he had to distribute the assets but could decide when and how.
Mr Justice Robert Tang Ching  and Mrs Justice Judianna Barnes Wai-ling  decided on the former, because the criteria laid down to get the inheritance meant none of the  descendants was  actually entitled to it.
Should no eligible  descendants emerge the assets would  go to a  trust belonging to the estate of the deceased.
Mr Justice Peter Cheung Chak-yau,  dissenting, said Law Shuk-hoi was designated to carry out his father's wishes, and had 'no choice' but to follow the criteria, regardless of whether he himself wanted to distribute the money.
'He is under an obligation to carry out the deceased's intention,' he said in the written judgment, adding that  Shuk-hoi's full administrative power 'merely means that he is not required to consult others in his task.'
 Elsewhere in his judgment Cheung noted: 'The task imposed on the plaintiff would be meaningless and the deceased's intention frustrated if, despite making the inquiry and satisfying himself that the conditions have been met, he could simply decide not to distribute.' 
Law Ting-pong died in 1996, aged 86, leaving  HK$1 billion split into three categories.  Other than the 'rainy-day fund' being contested, a third was for another, estranged son - 'so as to compensate for my fault in the past in failing to discharge my paternal duties,' he wrote - and another third was set aside for charity. He  was survived by 28  descendants, including eight children.



Court upholds Bossini heir's right to control HK$330m family fund