Chin v The estate of George Edward Chin: costs approach claim value as court strikes swathes of witness evidence

Large parts of the evidence filed by a claimant seeking an account of Hong Kong sale proceeds have been excluded before trial, in a ruling that lays bare the disproportion of a family dispute where combined costs are approaching the maximum realistic value of the claim.

In Chin v The estate of George Edward Chin and Chin [2026] EWHC 1791 (Ch), handed down on 16 July 2026, Deputy Master Henderson allowed the defendants' application in substantial part while granting the claimant's oral application for cross-examination at trial.

The Part 8 claim, issued in October 2020, seeks an account of the proceeds of a Kowloon flat sold in 2014, held by the parents and their son Winston as beneficial joint tenants. The claimant, one of six siblings, sues as executrix of her late mother's estate. An earlier probate claim saw HH Judge Jarman QC set aside a 2011 will and a transfer on grounds of want of knowledge and approval and undue influence. Deputy Master Glover determined the Hong Kong law issues in January 2025.

The procedural history is stark. The trial has been adjourned on seven occasions since a 1.5-day listing first fixed for January 2022. Net proceeds were HK$5,790,000, making the claim worth at most around £200,000 plus interest, with recovery uncertain absent personal liability in Winston. The costs schedules for this application alone came to £11,220 and £39,386.20.

Deputy Master Henderson rejected the submission that his December 2025 order confined the claimant to answering particular points in the defendants' evidence, reasoning that such a restriction would let the defendants curtail the material before the court by serving sparse evidence themselves. That did not give the claimant a free hand: the evidence still had to be relevant.

He treated Rahman v Rahman and Wilkinson v West Coast Capital as consistent, adopting Mann J's approach with one adjustment, substituting a test of whether it would be just and proportionate in accordance with the overriding objective to permit the evidence, rather than simply "right".

Applied to the material, the results were unsparing. Statements made by the claimant, her sister, and her brother-in-law in the probate claim, recycled and adopted "so far as relevant in these proceedings", were excluded in full. That formula was unsatisfactory because it left the other parties and the court uncertain what was adopted; the statements had been aimed at different issues and had already been the subject of cross-examination.

Allegations that the father and Winston used accounts in others' names to conceal income from the Revenue between 1978 and 1993 were excluded outright. Defrauding the Revenue in that period, the ruling observed, hardly shows a propensity to deal with sale proceeds without a joint owner's consent two decades later. Passages inviting the court to infer, or expressing what the claimant found difficult to believe, were excluded as submission or speculation rather than evidence. Evidence going only to credit was left to the trial judge, following Anglo Eastern Trust v Kermanshahchi.

On cross-examination, Deputy Master Henderson accepted there was a substantial element of fishing in the claimant's approach, noting her solicitors had written that a ruling for the defendants on Hong Kong law would likely conclude the action. He nonetheless applied the rule in Browne v Dunn as restated in TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths: the court will not find a witness dishonest without the allegation being fairly put. Enough had been done on some allegations, notably Winston's evidence that the proceeds were spent during his mother's lifetime with her agreement, to make cross-examination necessary. Justice and fairness outweighed case management considerations, though the trial judge retains power to limit or dispense with it.

Alexander Learmonth KC appeared for the claimant; Jordan Holland for the defendants.