NH Chan JCA:

We heard this appeal on 25 January 1999 and gave our decision the same day. We allowed the appeal. We give our reasons below.

On 18 April 1972, Lee Guat Cheow (since deceased) made a will in which he left his residuary estate to his wife and to his two sons. Clause 6 of the will states:

I hereby devise and bequeath all my remaining estate both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever absolutely to my said wife Low Ai Lean and my sons Lee Eng Eow and Lee Eng Hai in equal shares.

One of the sons Lee Eng Hai predeceased his father. He died on 6 July 1977. It appears that at the time of his death he left issue. The testator Lee Guat Cheow died on 5 September 1980. The effect, it seems, is that at the time of the testator's death his residuary estate devolved on his wife, his son Lee Eng Eow and the issue of the late Lee Eng Hai who have survived the testator (s. 25, Wills Act 1959).

The executors of the will of the late Lee Guat Cheow (when the will was probated) were the wife of the testator Mrs Lee Ai Lian, nee Low and his son Lee Eng Eow. Subsequently, on 29 December 1996 Low Ai Lian died and that left Lee Eng Eow as the remaining executor.

In late 1997, the executrix of the estate of Low Ai Lian, deceased and the administratrixes of the estate of Lee Eng Hai, deceased brought the present action by originating summons against Lee Eng Eow in his capacity as a director of a limited company known as Lee Guat Cheow & Co. Sdn Bhd. [Any Latin agent-noun ending in -tor could form a feminine in -trix and the Latin plural for that is -ices. So that, the plural for administratrix is administratrices. But, when it comes to usage lawyers have used their own spelling. In a letter to The Times, the Senior Registrar of Probate wrote, 'It has long been the practice' he said 'of the devotees of the somewhat esoteric cult of probate freely to employ the word executrixes ...': see Fowler's Modern English Usage (2nd edn revised by Sir Ernest Gowers), pp. 649, 650. In the same vein judges have always spelt the word judgement as judgment in their written decisions]. We are appalled at the laxity of the person responsible for the shoddy drafting of the originating summons. We reproduce it below so that when we comment on it in our judgment the defects can be seen at once.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MALAYA AT PENANG

ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 24-985-97 BETWEEN

1. Mary Lee as Executrix of the Estate of Low Ai Lian, deceased

2. Teh Lay Nah and Lee Soo Ming as administratrices of the Estate of Lee Eng Hai, deceased ... Plaintiffs

AND

Lee Eng Eow as Director of Lee Guat Cheow & Co Sdn Bhd ... Defendant (Under Receivership)

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

LET ALL PARTIES CONCERNED attend before the Judge on the 26th day of February 1998 at 9.00 am to hear an application of the plaintiffs for a declaration and the following orders:

1. A declaration that that according to the construction and interpretation of Clause 6 of the Will of Lee Guat Cheow dated 18th April 1972, that all the remaining estate both real and personal whatsoever and wheresoever of the Estate of Lee Guat Cheow, deceased be divided in the follwing manner:

a) 1/3 to the 1st plaintiff as executor of the Estate of Low Ai Lian, deceased.

b) 1/3 to the 2nd plaintiffs as administratrices of the Estate of Lee Eng Hai, deceased.

c) 1/3 to Lee Eng Eow.

2. An order that the defendant do instruct the directors and/or secretaries, of Lee Guat Cheow & Co Sdn Bhd to transfer the shares and rectify the register of the said company's shareholders in the following manner:-

i) 780 shares in the said company held by Low Ai Lian, deceased in her personal capacity to be transmitted to Mary Lee.

ii) 1/3 of 1,300 shares to be transmitted from the Estate of Lee Guat Cheow, deceased to the Estate of Low Ai Lian, deceased and subsequently from the Estate of Low Ai Lian, deceased to the 1st plaintiff.

iii) 1/3 of 1.300 shares to be transmitted from the Estate of Lee Guat Cheow, deceased to the