Fraudulent calumny is a ground for avoiding a testamentary disposition on the ground of fraud. It refers to the poisoning of a testator’s mind against someone who would otherwise be a natural beneficiary, by casting dishonest aspersions on his character.

Yip Sau Ching & Ors v Yip Che Shing & Ors

 [2025] HKCFI 657, the Court of First Instance for the first time in Hong Kong considered a claim of fraudulent calumny after trial. The defendants are the disinherited children who alleged that when making his last will, their father was induced by false representations about the character of one of the disinherited child of being greedy and putting himself above the mother’s well-being. The Court rejected the claim and pronounced the will in solemn form.

The Court held that to establish fraudulent calumny, 6 elements must be proved: (1) a representation made to the testator; (2) which was false; (3) about the character of the existing or potential beneficiary; (4) for the purpose of inducing the testator to alter his testamentary dispositions; (5) made knowing that it is untrue, or reckless as to its truth; and (6) the will is made only because of the fraudulent calumny.

On element (4), the Court held that there must be proof that the representation was made for the specific purpose of inducing the testator to alter his testamentary dispositions. Such an approach is justified given courts should be slow to upset duly executed wills, especially when challenges are made years after the event against parties who were unlikely to have been involved.

As to element (6), the Court stated that the requirement is better stated as one requiring the fraudulent calumny to “induce” the testator to make the will, i.e. the circumstances attending its execution are inconsistent with any other hypothesis but that of fraud.

The judgment sets a precedent for future cases in Hong Kong involving fraudulent calumny and is a welcome affirmation of the importance of respecting testamentary freedom and the need for clear evidence to overturn a duly executed will.

, instructed by Sit Fung Kwong & Shum, appeared for the plaintiffs.

Members

Recruitment

Mentions

More on Recent Judgments

Fraudulent Calumny: Poisoning The Mind of a Testator

About

Members

Recruitment

What’s New