## Facts

- A man and Madam Chu purportedly entered a concubinage union in Shanghai in 1945.
- At all material times, both were domiciled in Mainland China for private international law purposes.
- Concubinage had been abolished in Mainland China before 1945, although it had historically existed as a Chinese customary institution.
- The man moved to Hong Kong in 1951; Madam Chu followed in 1952, but their domicile was treated as remaining in Mainland China.
- Hong Kong abolished concubinage as a legal institution in 1971, while preserving the status and rights of concubines previously “lawfully taken.”
- Madam Chu died intestate in 1987 owning immovable property in Hong Kong.
- A dispute arose whether Madam Chu qualified as a “concubine” under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73), affecting distribution of her Hong Kong immovables.
- The Court of Appeal held the alleged concubinage had no legal effect under the law of the parties’ domicile and therefore was not recognized for Hong Kong succession purposes.
- The appellant sought final appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

## Issues

1. How should the term “concubine” in the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance be construed, given Hong Kong’s abolition of concubinage and statutory preservation of certain pre-abolition relationships?
2. Under Hong Kong private international law, can a concubinage union purportedly created abroad be treated as “lawfully entered into” if it was not legally effective under the parties’ domicile at the time of creation?
3. What is the consequence for intestate succession to Hong Kong immovable property if the deceased is not recognized as a “concubine” within the Ordinance?

## Decision

- The Court of Final Appeal dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Court of Appeal’s result.
- The Court held that statutory references to a “union of concubinage lawfully entered into” refer to a relationship recognized by Hong Kong law.
- Hong Kong’s recognition of an overseas concubinage union depends, by conflict-of-laws principles, on validity under the law of the parties’ domicile at the time the union was created.
- Because concubinage had been abolished under the parties’ Mainland domicile by 1945, the alleged union had no legal effect there and was not a “lawfully entered into” concubinage for Hong Kong purposes.
- Madam Chu was therefore not a “concubine” for purposes of intestate succession under the Ordinance in relation to her Hong Kong immovable property.

## Legal Principles

- Statutory preservation of pre-abolition concubinage protects only concubinage unions that Hong Kong law recognizes as having been lawfully created.
- Recognition of a foreign status relationship (including concubinage where relevant) is determined using conflict-of-laws rules, with domicile playing a central role in assessing legal existence/validity.
- Succession to immovable property is governed by the law of the situs, but antecedent status questions relevant to succession may be determined by the law of domicile.
- Hong Kong treats Hong Kong and Mainland China as distinct law areas for private international law analysis in cross-boundary status and succession questions.

## Conclusion

The Court of Final Appeal held that an alleged 1945 concubinage union between parties domiciled in Mainland China was not “lawfully entered into” because concubinage was already abolished under the domicile’s law; accordingly, the deceased was not recognized as a “concubine” under the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance for distribution of her Hong Kong immovable property on intestacy.


Suen Toi Lee v. Yau Yee Ping, [2001] 4 H.K.C.F.A.R. 474 (H.K. Ct. Final Appeal 2001)