When a Will Is Not Enough: French Forced Heirship, the DPC Clarification, and What It Means for Hong Kong

Hong Kong has recently overtaken Switzerland as the world’s largest cross-border wealth hub, with BCG’s Global Wealth Report 2026 recording USD 2.9 trillion in cross-border assets under management. Against that backdrop, the intersection of French forced heirship rules and common law testamentary freedom is no longer a niche concern affecting only a handful of Anglo-French families. It is a live issue for a significant and growing segment of Hong Kong’s internationally mobile client base: French nationals living in Hong Kong, Hong Kong permanent residents who own property in France, British nationals in Hong Kong with French assets, and European family offices now actively establishing operations in the city.

For these clients, the European Commission’s recent clarification on the French droit de prélèvement compensatoire (DPC) is important news. But it is not, as we shall explain, the end of the story.

The Common Law foundation: Testamentary freedom in Hong Kong and England

Hong Kong’s succession law is built on the common law principle of testamentary freedom. As a general rule, a person making a will in Hong Kong is free to leave their assets to whomever they choose. That freedom is constrained only by the Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Ordinance (Cap. 481), which enables certain categories of persons to apply to the court for reasonable financial provision from a deceased person’s estate where none has been made. Cap. 481 applies where the deceased was either domiciled in Hong Kong or ordinarily resident in Hong Kong at any time in the three years immediately preceding their death. There is no concept of forced heirship in Hong Kong, and no portion of an estate is automatically reserved for any heir.

Cap. 481 is a discretionary remedy. Unlike a fixed forced heirship entitlement, it requires an applicant to satisfy the court that the deceased’s dispositions failed to make reasonable financial provision for them. Adult children face a particularly high threshold: they must generally demonstrate that they were being maintained by the deceased immediately before death. The court then exercises broad discretion in determining what provision, if any, to order. This is a fundamentally different legal framework from the automatic, mathematically fixed entitlement that French law confers on children.

The position in England and Wales is broadly analogous. The Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 (the 1975 Act) provides a comparable discretionary remedy, and it is the English statute — rather than Cap. 481 — that has been at the centre of the recent Franco-European debate. Understanding the distinction between the two, and its significance for Hong Kong-based clients, is essential.

The French Réserve Héréditaire: A fixed entitlement

Under French succession law, the réserve héréditaire is a legally protected share of the estate that must pass to the deceased’s children regardless of any testamentary direction to the contrary. The reserved proportion is fixed by reference to the number of children: one child is entitled to one half of the estate; two children share two thirds; and three or more children share three quarters between them. The balance — the quotité disponible — may be disposed of freely. This regime reflects a deep-rooted public policy commitment to intergenerational wealth protection.

For clients in second marriages or blended family structures who wish to leave their entire estate to a surviving spouse or partner, French forced heirship constitutes a significant obstacle wherever French property forms part of the estate.

Brussels IV: The choice of Law tool

The EU Succession Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, known as Brussels IV, came into force across most EU Member States in August 2015. Its central purpose was to harmonise cross-border succession within the EU by providing that a single law — by default, the law of the deceased’s habitual residence at the time of death — governs the succession of the entire estate, regardless of where assets are located.

Under EU law, habitual residence is determined on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the circumstances. When it is debatable, it should not be presumed and qualified legal counsel should be sought on this point.

Article 22 of the Regulation permits an individual to elect the law of their nationality to govern their succession, with the concept of renvoi expressly excluded where such an election is made.

For nationals of common law jurisdictions with property in France, this election has been a vital planning tool. The European e-Justice Portal provides a useful overview of how the Regulation interacts with national succession rules across Member States. For British nationals, the additional benefit was the ability to pass French assets to a surviving spouse free of the UK’s 40% Inheritance Tax through the spousal exemption — a tax-planning consideration that does not arise in Hong Kong, where estate duty was abolished in 2006.

France’s countermeasure: The Droit de Prélèvement Compensatoire

In 2021, France amended Article 913 of the French Civil Code to introduce the DPC. Where the deceased or any of their children was, at death, an EU national or habitually resident in an EU Member State, and the applicable foreign law contains no mechanism protecting children’s inheritance rights, those children may claim financial compensation directly on assets located in France (but only on those assets that are located in France). French notaires are required to identify affected children and notify them of this entitlement.

This provision was enacted in response to two high-profile cases, in which worldwide famous musicians from France, namely, Michel Colombier and Maurice Jarre, had settled in California and made arrangements under Californian Law to have all their assets, including the assets located in France, inherited, through a trust mechanism, by their widow, at the expense of their children – notably of children from prior relationships.

In two notorious judgments of 2017 [Note 1], the French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) ruled that the réserve héréditaire is not included in the international public policy (“public order”) of French Law, which must be preserved in all and every situation. As such, it validated the exclusion of the réserve héréditaire including on the assets located in France, to the benefit of the application of the American Law, and of its testamentary freedom.

This outcome was seen as unsatisfactory by the French legislator, who amended Article 913 of the French Civil Code with the purpose of allowing children – subject to the conditions outlined above – to claim compensation on the assets of the deceased that are located in France.

The DPC was immediately controversial. Many practitioners and affected families argued that it directly undermined the purpose of Brussels IV by allowing domestic French legislation to override a Regulation-compliant choice of law election. Numerous complaints were lodged with the European Commission, which opened a formal investigation.

The European Commission’s clarification

On 4 June 2026, the European Commission published its formal response to the complaints registered under reference CPLT(2022)03325. The Commission concluded that the matter was about to be closed, accepting, and circulating, France’s explanation that the DPC is consistent with Article 35 of the Regulation, which permits a Member State to disapply a chosen foreign law where its application would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy (ordre public) of the forum.

The critical clarification is that the DPC will not be triggered where the chosen foreign law already provides a mechanism for protecting children. France explicitly acknowledged that the family provision regime under the 1975 Act qualifies as such a mechanism. The Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners (STEP) has noted that the Commission’s response offers some comfort to those concerned about the DPC, while cautioning that important questions remain unanswered. It is important to note that the Commission’s conclusion is not binding on French courts, and the opinion of the French government is precisely that — an opinion. Until the matter is tested before the European Court of Justice, the DPC cannot simply be disregarded.

Why this matters differently for Hong Kong

The significance of the Commission’s clarification for Hong Kong-based clients is both real and limited, and the distinction deserves careful attention.

• Hong Kong is home to Asia’s largest French expatriate community, estimated by the French Consulate at over 25,000 individuals. Many retain assets in France — family homes, investment properties, inherited land — while building their lives and careers in Hong Kong. At the same time, Hong Kong permanent residents increasingly hold European property as part of diversified international portfolios. And with approximately 30 European family offices currently working with InvestHK to establish operations in Hong Kong, drawn by the territory’s family office tax concession regime and its unrivalled access to Asian markets, the number of clients with Franco-Hong Kong succession issues is only set to grow. For these clients, the question is not simply whether the DPC applies to wills governed by English law. It is whether Hong Kong law — and specifically Cap. 481 — can serve as the relevant child-protection mechanism, and what happens when neither English law nor Hong Kong law is the obvious governing choice.
• The Cap. 481 question. The French clarification was framed by reference to the 1975 Act. Cap. 481 was not mentioned. While Cap. 481 is modelled on the 1975 Act and shares its discretionary character, a French notaire assessing whether it constitutes a sufficient child-protection mechanism may focus on the dependency-based nature of its adult child provisions and conclude that it falls short of the automatic protection that French law regards as the minimum standard. There is, as yet, no authoritative guidance on this point, and it represents one of the most significant unresolved questions for Hong Kong-based practitioners.
• The domicile complication. For Hong Kong-domiciled clients who elect the law of England and Wales under Brussels IV — a choice available to British nationals, including holders of a British National (Overseas) passport — the protective effect of that election depends on whether a French notaire will apply the 1975 Act to a person who died domiciled in Hong Kong rather than in England and Wales. The 1975 Act applies only to the estate of a person who dies domiciled in England and Wales. A Hong Kong-domiciled British national who has made a Brussels IV election for English law may find themselves in a legal grey area: the election brings English law into play, but the 1975 Act’s own domicile requirement may exclude them from its protection. Whether a French notaire will treat the election as importing the whole of English law — including the 1975 Act — or will apply the 1975 Act’s own domicile restriction, remains genuinely open.
• The nationality dimension. For French nationals living in Hong Kong — a substantial cohort — Brussels IV does not offer the same escape route. French nationals cannot elect a foreign law to govern their succession under Article 22: the election, if there is one, must be for the law of one’s nationality, which, in their case, is French law. As such, when a law is chosen by a French person under article 22, French forced heirship applies to the worldwide estate as a result of his/her choice of an applicable law, regardless of where this person is domiciled or resident. For these clients, the DPC is not the first concern — the réserve héréditaire itself applies directly. Succession planning for French nationals in Hong Kong requires a fundamentally different approach, potentially involving lifetime structuring, pactes successoraux, or the use of holding vehicles, rather than a choice of law election.
• The Hong Kong probate dimension. Clients with assets in both Hong Kong and France face the additional complexity of parallel probate processes. A separate grant of probate or letters of administration must be obtained from the Hong Kong Probate Registry under the Probate and Administration Ordinance (Cap. 10) for any Hong Kong-situs assets, even where the estate is otherwise governed by a foreign law. Coordinating the Hong Kong grant with the French succession process — which is administered by a notaire rather than a court — adds time, cost, and procedural complexity that clients frequently underestimate.

Client issues arising in Hong Kong’s practice

Many Private Client-focused firms in Hong Kong advise a broad range of clients whose succession planning is directly affected by the issues described above. The following recurring themes are drawn from our experience.

• Stale Brussels IV elections. A significant number of clients have made Brussels IV elections in wills drafted some years ago, often before the DPC was introduced and before they fully appreciated the domicile issue. A will drafted in Hong Kong that elects English law may have been entirely appropriate at the time of execution, but if the client’s domicile has since shifted — whether through long-term residence in France, the acquisition of a French domicile of choice or a change in intention — the protective effect of that election may be materially undermined. Regular will reviews, particularly following any change of residence, domicile, or family circumstances, are not optional. They are essential.
• French property held through SCIs. A number of our clients hold French property through a société civile immobilière (SCI), a common French vehicle used for both tax and estate-planning purposes. Where property is held through an SCI, the succession of the shares in the SCI — rather than the underlying property — may be governed by a different law, potentially altering the DPC analysis entirely. The interaction between the SCI structure, the applicable succession law, and the DPC requires careful coordination with French notaires and tax advisers, and cannot be addressed by a choice of law election alone.
• Dual nationality and competing elections. Clients with dual nationality — British-French, French-Hong Kong, or other combinations — face particular complexity. A British-French dual national may in principle elect either English law or French law under Brussels IV, but the choice is not straightforward: electing English law may engage the DPC analysis if some assets are located in France, while electing French law subjects the entire estate to the réserve héréditaire. For clients with Hong Kong connections, the interaction of nationality, domicile, and habitual residence requires bespoke analysis that goes well beyond standard choice of law advice.
• Family offices with European assets. As European family offices establish themselves in Hong Kong and Hong Kong-based family offices diversify into European property and investments, the succession planning implications of French asset ownership are becoming a board-level concern. The Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions for Family-owned Investment Holding Vehicles) Ordinance 2023 has made Hong Kong an increasingly attractive base for family wealth management, but the tax efficiency of the Hong Kong structure must be considered alongside the succession law implications of assets held in civil law jurisdictions such as France.

Real-life scenarios

Scenario 1 — The French National in Hong Kong with a blended family

A French national who has been resident in Hong Kong for 15 years has children from two relationships. She owns a property in Brittany inherited from her parents, as well as significant Hong Kong assets. She wishes to leave the bulk of her estate to her current Hong Kong-based partner, who is not a spouse. As a French national, she cannot use Brussels IV to elect a law other than French law. If she has elected French Law, the réserve héréditaire will apply to her worldwide estate, guaranteeing her children a fixed share. Achieving her objectives would then require a combination of lifetime planning — potentially including a pacte successoral executed before two French notaires — alongside careful structuring of her Hong Kong assets to ensure that the Hong Kong portion of her estate is dealt with efficiently and in accordance with her wishes under the Hong Kong Wills Ordinance (Cap. 30).

Scenario 2 — The Hong Kong-domiciled British National with a French holiday home

A British national who has lived in Hong Kong for twenty years, acquiring a Hong Kong domicile of choice, owns a property in Dordogne. He is in a second marriage and has two estranged adult children from his first marriage. One of his children is habitually resident in an EU Member State. He has made a Brussels IV election for English law in his will. On the current analysis, the election should in principle engage the 1975 Act as a child-protection mechanism, potentially preventing the DPC from being triggered. However, because he is domiciled in Hong Kong rather than England and Wales, the position is not certain: a French notaire may take the view that the 1975 Act does not apply to a Hong Kong-domiciled testator, and that the DPC must therefore apply on the holiday home in Dordogne. We would advise reviewing both the ownership structure of the French property and the terms of the will to ensure the best available protection, and maintaining close coordination with French counsels.

Scenario 3 — The expatriate whose domicile is shifting

A British national who has spent two decades in Hong Kong decides to retire to the South of France. She holds assets in Hong Kong, London, and Provence (France). As her domicile shifts from Hong Kong to France, it is time for her to check if her planning decisions would still be valid and efficient once she has acquired a French domicile of choice. Succession planning is not a one-time exercise. It must be revisited whenever a client’s domicile, habitual residence, or family circumstances change. This is why clients who are considering a move to France should seek advice before, not after, relocating.

Scenario 4 — The European Family Office establishing in Hong Kong

A European family with significant French real estate assets is in the process of establishing a single family office in Hong Kong under the FamilyOfficeHK initiative. The family includes French, British and Hong Kong nationals across two generations. The succession planning for the family must address not only the Hong Kong tax concession structure but also the French forced heirship implications for the French-nationality family members, the DPC risk for those who elect non-French governing laws while holding assets in France, and the parallel probate requirements in Hong Kong and France. A coordinated, multi-jurisdictional approach — involving Hong Kong solicitors, French notaires, and tax advisers in each relevant jurisdiction — is the only way to ensure that the family’s succession plan is coherent and effective.

Bespoke planning remains essential

The European Commission’s clarification offers a degree of reassurance, but it falls well short of delivering certainty. The DPC has not been abolished. The Commission’s conclusion is not binding on French courts. The interaction between the DPC and Cap. 481 has not been tested. And for French nationals in Hong Kong who have elected French law under article 22 of the Brussels IV Regulation, the clarification is largely irrelevant — the réserve héréditaire applies to them directly.

As already observed at international forums, including the 2026 Cambridge Forum for International Wealth Advisors held in Provence — where cross-border estate planning and the friction between civil and common law systems were central themes — the internationalisation of family wealth demands a holistic approach that goes well beyond the drafting of a single will. For Hong Kong-based clients in particular, the combination of testamentary freedom under Hong Kong law, the absence of estate duty, and the territory’s position as a global wealth hub creates both opportunities and obligations. Large returns on assets are immaterial if they are swallowed up by unforeseen legal liabilities or inadequate succession planning.

A choice of law election is a valuable tool, but it is not a complete answer. Careful structuring, coordinated advice across all relevant jurisdictions, and regular reviews of existing arrangements remain the only reliable way to ensure that a succession plan achieves its intended effect — and that a client’s wishes are honoured, not overridden, when it matters most.

 

The Private Client, Probate and Trust team at Hugill & Ip advises high-net-worth individuals, internationally mobile families, and family offices on all aspects of cross-border estate planning, will drafting, and estate administration in Hong Kong and internationally. For further guidance on any of the issues discussed in this article, please do not hesitate to contact us.

 

For information purposes only. The contents of this article do not constitute legal advice and readers should not regard this as a substitute for detailed advice in individual instances.

Notes:

 [1] Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 27 sept. 2017, n° 16-13.151, Michel Colombier; and Cour de cassation, Chambre civile 1, 27 sept. 2017, n° 16-17.198, Maurice Jarre