Back
2024 MarsdenLR 1463
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KEE LEE PEOW – Appellant
Versus
KEE JEK HEE & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCVC-629-11/2023]
The court emphasized that the balance of convenience in administering an estate favors beneficiaries over a party lacking direct interest, impacting the decision on interlocutory injunctions.
Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Section 30 - Interlocutory injunction - Plaintiff sought injunction against Defendants to prevent them from administering the estate of the deceased pending suit - Court considered principles of interim injunction including serious questions to be tried and balance of convenience - Court found that the Plaintiff's claims were not sufficient to warrant an injunction. (Paras 12-22)
(B) The court observed that the management of the deceased's estate was ongoing and that granting the injunction would prejudice the beneficiaries. (Paras 20-21)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, sister of the deceased, sought an injunction against the Defendants, who were granted letters of administration for the deceased's estate, claiming surprise at the proceedings. (Paras 4-10)
Findings of Court:
The court acknowledged that the Plaintiff's claims did not establish a sufficient basis for the injunction, emphasizing the need to prioritize the beneficiaries' interests. (Paras 21-22)
Issues: The main issues included the Plaintiff's standing and the appropriateness of the Defendants as administrators. (Paras 16-17)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the balance of convenience favored the Defendants, as the Plaintiff lacked a direct interest in the estate and the injunction would disrupt ongoing estate management. (Paras 20-22)
Result: Decision in favor of the Plaintiff was regrettably delivered but should have prioritized the beneficiaries.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff is the biological sister (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 18 , 19) |
| 2. the plaintiff contended that (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 3. the court also observed (Para 20 , 21) |
| 4. this court had given decision (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
(Enclosure 19)
[1] This is the Plaintiff's Application for Interlocutory Injunction and Disclosure Order against the Defendants (Enclosure 19) to prevent the 2nd Defendant (D2) and the 3rd Defendant (D3) from performing their duties as the administrators for the estate of the late Kee Soon Ling (Deceased), granted in the OS No WA-31NCVC-3180-09/2023 (Suit 3180), pending the disposal of this instant Suit.
[2] This Court has allowed encl 19.
Brief Facts
[3] The facts of this Suit are as set out in the Plaintiff's Statement of Claim (SOC).
[4] The Plaintiff is the biological sister of the Deceased, who passed away intestate on 28 October 2022.
[5] The Deceased left behind his father, the 1st Defendant (D1), and his wife, D2 as beneficiaries.
[6] D3 is the mother, guardian and trustee of Kee Wai Mun (KWM), allegedly the illegitimate child of the Deceased.
[7] The Plaintiff had filed an OS No WA-31NCVC-168-01/2023 (Suit 168) to obtain a Letter of Administration (LA) for the Deceased's estate. Thereafter a caveat was lodged by D3 on 27 December 2022.
[8] On 25 August 2023 that Court in Suit 168 ruled that the probate proceedings as contentious and therefore to be converted to a Writ action.
[9] Suit 168 was later withdrawn with liberty to file afresh.
[10] Thereafter, the Plaintiff learnt that Suit 3180 was filed by the Defendants and an order for LA was granted to D2 and D3 to administer the estate of the Deceased.
[11] The Plaintiff contended that she had no knowledge of Suit 3180 and was caught by surprise. It seemed that Suit 3180 was filed on 29 September 2023 and D1 had filed Renunciation to relinquish his rights for the LA of the Deceased's estate in Suit 3180. Subsequently, the order for LA in Suit 3180 was obtained on 30 November 2023.
Findings And Analysis
Principles Of Interim / Interlocutory Injunction
[12] The Plaintiff submitted the case of American Cyanamid v. Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396 and cited the following authorities on the law of injunction, that have been consistently adopted and applied by the Malaysian Courts - Lian Keow Sdn Bhd & Anor v. Overseas Credit Finance (M) Bhd & Ors; [1982] CLJ (Rep) 182 (Federal Court ), Sivaperuman v. Heah Seok Yeong Realty Sdn Bhd ; (Federal Court ), Keet Gerald Francis Noel John v. Mohd Noor Abdullah & Ors; [1995] 1 CLJ 293; [1995] 1 AMR 373 ( Court of Appeal), AV Asia Sdn Bhd v. Measat Broadcast Network Systems Sdn Bhd; [2014] 3 MLJ 61; [2014] 1 CLJ 821; [2014] 1 AMR 593 (Federal Court )).
[13] According to the Plaintiff, the Court does not need to be convinced that the Plaintiff would ultimately be entitled to a permanent injunction if the case proceeded to trial, based solely on the evidence presented during the interlocutory hearing. The threshold for granting interlocutory relief is lower (Sivaperuman (supra)) and that the Court 's primary concern is not to assess the likelihood of success or failure in the civil suit at trial, nor is it to evaluate the evidence and materials in detail for that purpose at this stage (Lian Keow (supra)). The Court only has to identify the issues raised clearly and decide if they are serious enough to justify trial (Keet Gerald Francis (supra)).
[14] The Plaintiff further contended that the balance of convenience is on the Plaintiff. This involves determining if the Plaintiff would be adequately compensated by damages if the injunction is not granted and they ultimately succeed at trial. If damages are an adequate remedy and the Defendant can pay them, an injunction may not be necessary (American Cynamid, Lian Keow (supra)).
[15] Accordingly, the principles consistently considered and applied by the Courts in an interim/interlocutory injunction are -
(a) Whether the
