SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 MarsdenLR 1227

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
MOEY YOKE LAI – Appellant
Versus
IVAN HO TIONG YIN & ORS – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: WA-24NCvC-415-03/2016]



The number of executors is limited to four, and removal must be substantiated by a breach of duty, which was not evident in this case.

Headnote:This case concerns the Plaintiff's Originating Summons for orders against the Defendants regarding the administration of the estate of the deceased. The court analyzed the mandate of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 and the Trustee Act 1949 regarding executors and trustees, concluding that the maximum number allowed is four. The court determined that while the Plaintiff's requests for removal of the five Defendants as executors lacked merit, the Defendants did have to provide an account of the estate, as they had previously failed to do so since the grant of probate. Ultimately, the court ruled to retain four of the five Defendants as executors and trustees while ordering transparency regarding estate accounts.

Table of Content
1. role of executors and their compliance. (Para 1 , 6 , 14)

[40] The Plaintiff submitted the following grounds for removal of the 5 Defendants as Executors of the Estate, namely for breach of duty as Executors:

(1) refusal to pay for the funeral expenses, totaling RM12,073.00;

(2) depriving Mdm Boy of her IC;

(3) not furnishing a copy of the Deceased's Will despite the Plaintiff's oral and written requests;

(4) not providing the list of inventory in the safe and not listing them in the Grant of Probate;

(5) the Plaintiff was never informed of when the Grant of Probate was applied for and granted despite Mdm Boy being the sole beneficiary;

(6) negligence and breach of duty as Executors by listing in the bank account where monies do not belong to the Estate;

(7) negligence and breach of duty as Executors by transferring monies from the bank account where monies do not belong to the Estate;

(8) failure to administer the Estate expeditiously. The sum of RM100,000.00 was only paid on 30 May 2011 ie 6 months after the Grant of Probate was obtained on 23 November 2010;

(9) shares transferred from the Deceased's Estate to the 1st Defendant;

(10) Estate's shares sold, but monies not given to the Plaintiff;

(11) medical expenses of the Deceased and Plaintiff totaling RM6,809.10 were not paid;

(12) delay in monthly payments to the Plaintiff;

(13) failure to make payment of "other personal expenses" of the Plaintiff;

(14) failure to make payment for Plaintiff's companion and maid, and nutritional supplements;

(15) the Defendant's cheque dated 25 September 2015 was dishonoured;

(16) no accounts rendered for 5 ½ years of executorship despite the Plaintiff's many requests;

(17) failure to distribute to the Plaintiff absolutely the Estate of the Deceased.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top