The sensational probate litigation on the rivaling claims to the late billionaire Nina Wang's huge estate ended in the High Court yesterday with the Chinachem Charitable Foundation emerging as the winner and feng shui master Tony Chan the loser.

Although the case cannot be said to be closed as Chan expects to appeal the ruling, Justice Johnson Lam Man-hon has given Hong Kong society a key verdict, which was the same as what the community had expected.

That the case has drawn so much attention was not only due to the sensation caused by the scramble for billions of dollars' worth of property and the personal relationship between Chan and Wang. It was also because the fate of Wang's estate involves public interest.

Being a national committee member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, Wang declared that her huge estate would be used for charity purposes on the mainland after she died. Hence, into whose hands her estate would fall aroused the concern of many, including Secretary for Justice Wong Yan-lung.

When Nina Wang vied with her father-in-law Wang Din-shin for her husband Teddy Wang's estate years ago, the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) ruled in 2005 that among the two wills of Teddy Wang, the newer one overrode the older one. The ruling, which took into consideration only the time factor and not the issue of authenticity, aroused much controversy. But, of course, the CFA's verdict was final.

Had Justice Lam this time followed the same pattern of reasoning, the will provided by Chan could have been ruled valid. While the general public deemed it inappropriate for a feng shui master to inherit Wang's estate, the final decision rested not with them but with the judge.

In yesterday's verdict, Lam ruled that the relationship between Chan and Wang was one of feng shui master and client, and the will issued in 2002 and now possessed by Chinachem was the final and valid one. He also ruled that the signature on the 2006 will provided by Chan was faked, and because of that, none of Chan's testimony was accepted by the court.

He ordered Chan to foot Chinachem's legal bill.

He pointed out that Wang could not have written such a detailed will in October 2006 as she was already very sick at that time.

He also queried that should Chan's will be real, why did he not reveal it to Wang's family during the time between October 2006, when the will was supposed to have been signed, and April 2007, when Wang passed away. Chan did not do so until after Wang's death. Hence Lam believed Wang did not make a new will for Chan on her deathbed.

The judge said Wang's signature on the 2006 will was skillfully faked as not even handwriting experts could prove it to be a forgery. He commented that Chan was not the right person to take over Chinachem. He refused to believe Wang could have bequeathed all of her estate to Chan, insisting that Wang's giving Chan large sums of money before her death was another matter.

In his verdict, the judge described Chan as an unreliable witness and his wife's testimony as not trustworthy.

Hong Kong's judiciary is characterized by its immunity from the influence of public opinion. The rulings in 2005 and this time are both reflections of this hallmark.

Since the losing party has the right to appeal the verdict, the battle for Wang's massive estate may go on, perhaps all the way to the CFA. The case will continue to arouse public interest as we all want to know the final outcome.

The author is a commentator of the Phoenix Satellite TV

(HK Edition 02/03/2010 page1)