Back
2022 MarsdenLR 2808
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
KIRANJIT KAUR JAGJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
THAMABALASINGAM @ THANABALASINGAM – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-24NCVC-980-05-2021]
The court has jurisdiction under Order 80 of the Rules of Court 2012 to resolve disputes in the administration of a deceased's estate, ensuring equitable distribution among beneficiaries despite ongoing conflicts between joint administrators.
Headnote:(A) Rules of Court 2012 – Order 80 Rules 1 and 2 – Joint administration of estate – Dispute between joint administrators regarding distribution of deceased's estate resulting in litigation – Consent order obtained, yet zero distribution occurred for over seven years post-death – Court's jurisdiction under Order 80 utilized to facilitate resolution and distribution. (Paras 1-2, 6-7, 50-94)
(B) Legal Principles – Urgency in estate distribution duties arising from intestate death – Role of court in administering unresolved disputes between joint administrators – Necessity for clear communication and agreement in joint administration responsibilities. (Paras 50-77)
Facts of the case: The case involves a dispute between the deceased's widow (plaintiff) and father (defendant) regarding the administration of the deceased's estate, where both were designated joint administrators under a consent order but failed to distribute the estate. (Paras 1-4)
Findings of Court: The court determined specific distributions of insurance policy proceeds and provided direction for interim distributions and resolutions of disputes regarding contributions and reimbursements, emphasizing the need for proper estate management. (Paras 200-233)
Issues: Key issues included the appropriate distribution of the estate, validity of insurance nominations, access to children, and the legitimacy of children born during marriage. (Paras 35-61, 148-155)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized its broad powers under the Rules of Court to mandate equitable resolutions in joint administration disputes and cited relevant sections of the Financial Services Act for clarity on insurance proceeds. (Paras 43-94)
Result: Orders made for various distributions and directions were allowed, counterclaims generally dismissed, and costs awarded against the defendant. (Paras 200-234)
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] This Judgment is one of those sad cases where joint administrators of an estate cannot see eye to eye. This resulted in zero distribution of the estate of the deceased who had died intestate more than seven years ago on 13 December 2014.
[2] The plaintiff is the widow of the deceased. The defendant is the father of the deceased.
[3] Despite a consent order dated 6 March 2017 whereby the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to be appointed as joint administrators of the estate they still could not agree to any distribution of the various assets of the estate. Not even when there was cash to the tune of RM680,808.34 in the estate as at 12 May 2021. (See letter from defendant's then solicitor's Messrs Rusmah Arunan & Associates ["RAA"] to plaintiff's solicitors Messrs Chooi & Co + Cheang & Ariff ["CCA"] dated 12 May 2021 exhibited as TT-2 of para 13 in the reply affidavit of the defendant dated 3 September 2021)
[4] The court's anxiety is compounded by the fact that caught between this fight between the plaintiff and defendant - both mature adults - are the deceased's two children. These two children together with the plaintiff and the defendant are all the 4 beneficiaries of this estate. Each has a ¼ share.
[5] The Malay language has a beautiful peribahasa to describe the predicament faced by these two children beneficiaries - "Gajah sama gajah berjuang, pelanduk mati ditengah-tengah."
[6] To break the deadlock, the plaintiff applied in this Originating Summons dated 7 May 2021 pursuant to O 80 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 [" ROC 2012"] and/or the inherent jurisdiction of the court to seek from this Honourable court determination of certain questions on the distribution of various assets of the estate and for reliefs to be granted by this court ["OS"].
[7] The defendant resisted strenuously this OS and had also filed a counterclaim in his reply affidavit.
[8] When this OS was transferred to me for CM on 8 February 2022 I had asked both counsel whether they wished to proceed with this OS and Counterclaim or whether parties wish to proceed by way of a writ as there appears to be disputes of facts Counsel at the next CM on 10 February 2022 informed me that parties wanted to proceed by way of OS. I then fixed the OS for hearing on 16 February 2022.
[9] I also requested counsel to see if any of the issues can be resolved amicably, in particular the sale of the assets of the estate and an interim distribution of the cash. But counsel for the defendant informed me that the defendant was unable to consent to any issue or sale or any interim distribution of cash.
[10] I then proceeded to hear this dispute. I requested the defendant to file a definitive list of his counterclaims The Counterclaim is now set out in the defendant's List of Counterclaims dated 18 February 2022 [encl 30]. I had requested for this to ensure there is no confusion and to ensure the plaintiff and defendant agree on the items in the Counterclaim that I am required to decide.
[11] I had also requested the plaintiff to file a List of Reimbursements to itemise the reimbursement of payments she sought in her OS at prayer 9. The plaintiff had duly filed a List of Reimbursements [encl 29].
[12] I further requested parties to file a Scott Schedule. This is again to ensure there is no confusion and to ensure the plaintiff and defendant agree on the prayers in the OS and Counterclaim that I am required to decide. Parties have filed a few Scott Schedules due to various subsequent amendments [encl 31, 36 & 39]. The final agreed Scott Schedule is dated 16 March 2022. [encl 40].
[13] A Scott Schedule is familiar to most lawyers and judges who do construction cases It was originally formulated by George Alexander Scott, who was a surveyor and Official Referee in the UK courts, for use in building disputes It is now also used for family court proceedings and other types of civil disputes where parties have many disputed items
[14] A Scott Schedule is e
