LEE SHU HANG AND LI SIN MAN SELINE (AS THE PERSONAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ESTATE OF LEE SAI NAM, DECEASED) V. KAN LAP KEE (ALSO KNOWN AS “TERRY KAN”)

[2026] HKCA 60 Court of Appeal 22 January 2026 • CAMP84/2025 • 13 min read

8 cases cited (0 HK, 8 foreign)

Outcome

Leave to appeal dismissed

leave to appeal is dismissed.

Source: [2026] HKCA 60, Court of Appeal, decided 22 January 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Judges (2)

Au Coram Harris Coram

Counsel (3)

Rita Law & Co Firm Adrian Lee Counsel Defendant D. S. Cheung & Co. Counsel Plaintiff

Case Significance

Lee Shu Hang and Li Sin Man Seline (as the personal representatives of the estate of Lee Sai Nam, deceased) v. Kan Lap Kee (also known as "Terry Kan") [2026] HKCA 60 saw the Court of Appeal dismiss leave to appeal, holding that "leave to appeal is dismissed." The matter had proceeded through the Court of First Instance in Lee Shu Hang and Another v. Kan Lap Kee AKA Terry Kan [2024] HKCFI 2836 and Lee Shu Hang and Another v. Kan Lap Kee (also known as "Terry Kan") [2025] HKCFI 1393 before reaching the Court of Appeal.

Summary

The personal representatives of Lee Sai Nam's estate sought an extension of time and leave to appeal against a stay of committal proceedings against Kan Lap Kee for breach of an undertaking to transfer property. The Court of Appeal refused both applications, finding no reasonably arguable grounds of appeal and no merit in the intended appeal.

What was the result in Lee Shu Hang and Li Sin Man Seline v. Kan Lap Kee (also known as "Terry Kan") [2026] HKCA 60?

The Court of Appeal dismissed leave to appeal, holding that "leave to appeal is dismissed." The dispute, brought by the personal representatives of the estate of Lee Sai Nam, had earlier been heard in Lee Shu Hang and Another v. Kan Lap Kee (also known as "Terry Kan") [2025] HKCFI 1393.