For many years, one of the most troubling features of estate planning for same-sex couples in Hong Kong was the gap between family reality and formal legal recognition. A couple might have married lawfully overseas, built a life together, and accumulated assets jointly over decades — yet the surviving spouse could still face real uncertainty when inheritance rights came under scrutiny. Hostile in-laws, unsympathetic administrators, and a legal framework that did not acknowledge the relationship at all could transform bereavement into a prolonged and expensive legal battle.
That is precisely why the Court of Final Appeal’s November 2024 decision in Li Yik Ho v Secretary for Justice [2024] HKCFA 30 marked such a significant moment. The Hong Kong Government confirmed on 26 November 2024 that the CFA dismissed the Secretary for Justice’s appeal, maintaining the lower courts’ judgments that the exclusion of same-sex spouses lawfully married overseas from parts of the Intestates’ Estates Ordinance (Cap. 73) (IEO) and the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (Cap. 481) (IPFDO) amounted to unlawful discrimination and was unconstitutional.
That ruling matters enormously. But from a private-client perspective, it should not be read as the end of the planning discussion. Improved same-sex inheritance rights in Hong Kong are important. They are not, however, a substitute for careful, forward-looking estate planning.
What the CFA Decision Actually Changes
The legal significance of the decision is that same-sex couples lawfully married overseas can no longer be excluded from the relevant statutory inheritance framework simply because their marriage is a same-sex marriage. The two ordinances at the centre of the ruling address the two most common estate problems in practice: what happens when a person dies without a will, and what happens when someone seeks reasonable financial provision from an estate.
Under the IEO, a surviving spouse of a married heterosexual couple was guaranteed to inherit part of the deceased’s estate on intestacy. Under the IPFDO, they could apply for “reasonable financial provision” as the deceased’s “wife” or “husband.” Prior to the ruling, a surviving same-sex spouse married overseas did not qualify as a “husband” or “wife” for these purposes and was therefore excluded from both protections. The CFA found this differential treatment failed proportionality review and was discriminatory and unconstitutional.
In practical terms, the ruling means that a surviving same-sex spouse lawfully married overseas is now entitled to the same intestacy distribution as a heterosexual surviving spouse — that is, the personal chattels, the first HK$1 million of the estate, and half of what remains (with the other half going to the deceased’s parents if there are no children). It also means that a same-sex spouse can now bring a dependants’ claim under the IPO where the estate does not make reasonable financial provision for them.
These are real and meaningful changes to the succession landscape in Hong Kong.
Why the Ruling Is Not Enough on Its Own
The CFA’s decision improves the statutory safety net. It does not remove the need for deliberate estate planning, and it would be a mistake to treat it as doing so.
Intestacy rules are default rules. They apply when someone has not made their wishes known through a properly drafted will. For same-sex couples, whose family structures are often more complex — involving children from previous relationships, overseas assets, family members who do not accept the relationship, or significant accumulated wealth — relying on default rules is rarely the right approach. The statutory distribution may not reflect what the deceased would have wanted, and it leaves no room for the kind of personalised provision that well-drafted estate planning can achieve.
The same logic applies to dependants’ claims under the IPFDO. A surviving spouse who has to bring a claim for reasonable financial provision has already been placed in a vulnerable position. They are litigating, often against hostile family members, at a time of grief. The cost, the delay, and the emotional toll of that process are exactly what good estate planning is designed to prevent.
The most direct advice remains the same as it has always been: do not leave important financial outcomes to default rules unless there is genuinely no alternative.
The Real Risks That a Will Addresses
A professionally prepared will does far more than simply direct who inherits the estate. It appoints the right executor — the person who will have legal authority to administer the estate, deal with banks and institutions, arrange the funeral, and handle the deceased’s affairs. For same-sex couples, the choice of executor is particularly important. Where family relationships are strained or where the surviving partner is not legally recognised in the same way as a heterosexual spouse might be, having a clearly appointed executor can make an enormous practical difference.
A will also allows the testator to address the specific realities of their family’s asset structure. It can provide for substitute beneficiaries in case the primary beneficiary does not survive. It can include specific bequests of sentimental or practical importance. It can address the care of children or dependants. And it can override the statutory distribution rules entirely, ensuring that the surviving partner receives the full estate rather than sharing it with the deceased’s parents or other relatives.
We have seen at firsthand what happens when these steps are not taken. In one case reported in the Hong Kong Free Press, a surviving husband whose partner died without a will faced a caveat lodged by his in-laws, who refused to recognise the relationship. Although the court ultimately ruled in his favour, the process cost him a six-figure sum in legal fees and months of emotional anguish at the worst possible time. A properly drafted will, naming him as executor and sole beneficiary, would have made that battle far harder to mount.
Incapacity Planning: The Gap That Inheritance Law Cannot Fill
Estate planning for same-sex couples must also address what happens before death, not only after it. If one partner loses mental capacity — whether through illness, accident, or the gradual onset of dementia — the question is no longer about inheritance. It is about who has the legal authority to manage that person’s financial affairs during their lifetime.
Without an Enduring Power of Attorney (EPOA), a same-sex partner has no automatic legal authority to access bank accounts, manage investments, pay bills, or make financial decisions on behalf of an incapacitated spouse. The CFA’s inheritance ruling does nothing to address this. An EPOA, executed while both parties have capacity, is the only reliable way to ensure that the right person can act when the need arises.
The failure of the Registration of Same-sex Partnerships Bill in September 2025 — voted down by the Legislative Council 71 to 14 — makes this point sharper. That bill would have granted same-sex couples certain rights in medical and end-of-life decision-making, including the ability to be consulted on a partner’s medical treatment and to handle burial and cremation arrangements. Its rejection leaves those gaps unaddressed by legislation. An EPA, combined with an advance medical directive where appropriate, is currently the most effective private-law response to that legislative vacuum.
Cross-Border Complexity Demands Specialist Advice
The CFA’s ruling addressed the application of two specific Hong Kong ordinances to same-sex couples lawfully married overseas. It does not resolve the full range of succession issues that may arise for internationally connected couples.
Many same-sex couples in Hong Kong have lives that are genuinely international: marriages registered in the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, or elsewhere; properties in multiple jurisdictions; offshore investment accounts; family trusts; or plans to retire abroad. In those circumstances, the analysis extends well beyond Hong Kong intestacy law. The recognition of the relationship in other jurisdictions, the treatment of foreign assets under local succession rules, and the interaction between different legal systems may all require careful, jurisdiction-specific advice.
Cross-border estate planning for LGBTQ+ couples is not simply a matter of drafting a Hong Kong will. It requires a holistic review of the couple’s entire asset structure, an understanding of how each relevant jurisdiction treats same-sex marriages, and a coordinated plan that minimises the risk of assets falling outside the intended succession framework.
The Correct Response to a Better Legal Baseline
The correct response to the CFA ruling is neither complacency nor unnecessary alarm. It is measured confidence combined with purposeful action. The law has moved in a more principled and equal direction, and that matters enormously. But equality in the statutory framework does not remove the ordinary risks of estate administration. People still die intestate. Families still argue. Assets are still overlooked. Executors are still chosen badly. Capacity is still lost before death.
For same-sex couples in Hong Kong, the 2024 decision provides a stronger foundation — but the foundation still needs to be built upon. The most practical advice remains familiar, even if the context is now fairer than before: document intentions clearly, review the estate structure regularly, execute an EPA while both parties have capacity, and avoid leaving important financial outcomes to default rules unless there is no alternative.
Pride Month is an opportunity to celebrate the legal progress that has been achieved. It is also a reminder that progress in the courts does not replace the need for personal planning. The strongest protection for a surviving same-sex spouse is not a court ruling. It is a clear, professionally prepared will, an appointed executor who will act in the right interests, and an estate structure that reflects the life the couple have actually built together.
Love makes a family, but in Hong Kong, meticulous legal planning protects it.
