The case involves two applications in the estate of the late Dato’ Ngau Ken Lock, who died on 8 March 1978 leaving a will dated 16 June 1960 devising his properties in equal shares to his wife Ee Tian and five sons (Ngau Boon Ming, Ngau Boon Thai, Ngau Boon Kee, Ngau Boon Pin, and Ngau Boon Kit) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . The executors (Ee Tian and Ngau Boon Ming) obtained probate; Ee Tian died in 1996, Ngau Boon Ming became sole administrator in 1997, and died on 2 July 2001 leaving the estate unadministered (!) . The petitioner (Ngau Voon Kiat, fifth son and beneficiary) seeks appointment as sole administrator de bonis non (encl 8, filed 28 September 2001) (!) . The applicant (Ngau Boon Pin, fourth son and beneficiary) seeks appointment as co-administrator with the petitioner (encl 14, filed 18 March 2002) (!) . All other beneficiaries or their representatives support the petitioner, oppose the applicant, and have renounced administration (!) (!) .

A grant de bonis non is for unadministered estate where prior representatives have died without full administration (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Under the Probate and Administration Act 1959, s 16, where executors die before full administration, letters with will annexed may go to the fittest person, with prior right to (i) universal/residuary legatees, (ii) their representatives, (iii) beneficiaries entitled as if intestate, etc. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Both parties fall under (iii) with equal priority, but the court has wide discretion under ss 16 and 30 to deem the fittest, considering all interested persons' rights and expediting economical administration (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

The court must decide between petitioner sole, applicant sole, or both as co-administrators, prioritizing majority beneficiaries' wishes, cooperation, and efficient administration (!) (!) (!) (!) . The applicant lacks majority support, has a minority interest (1/6 share), and evidence shows non-cooperation (e.g., ignored family efforts while in Australia) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) . Appointing the applicant (sole or co-) risks discord and delay; the petitioner has full support and is fittest (!) (!) .

The petitioner's argument that no caveat (O 71 r 37 RHC) bars the application is rejected; the dispute falls under O 71 r 22 allowing summons, which was properly filed (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .

Petition (encl 8) allowed; application (encl 14) dismissed, both with costs (!) (!) (!) .