A beneficiary cannot initiate a derivative action without obtaining letters of administration, which grants the legal standing required to sue on behalf of an estate.

[12] It is trite law in Malaysia that an executor or administrator of an estate of a deceased could only legally act on behalf of the estate of the deceased upon he/she being granted a grant of probate or letter of administration, whichever is applicable, by a competent court of law.

[13] In Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi v. Amanah Raya Berhad , 2011 MarsdenLR 3794 , p 48, the Federal court held as follows:

"It is the grant that clothes the personal representative with a title upon its issue by the Registry under the seal of court. The administrator derives his title from the grant and cannot act until then. We agree with what Ismail Khan J said in P Govindasamay Pillay & Sons Ltd v. Lok Seng Chai Ors, [1961] 1 MLJ 89 that "it is only on extracting the grant of letters of administration that the petitioner can be said to be duly clothed with the representative character and to have acquired a title to the estate". The learned judge in that case also followed Lord Parker's observation in the case of SMKR Meyappa Chetty v. SN Supramaniam Chetty [1957] 1 WLR 157, that:

An Administrator on the other hand derives title solely under his grant and cannot, therefore, institute an action as administrator before he gets his grant. The law on the point is well settled."

[14] In Dato' Ramesh Rajaratnam v. Datin Zaleha Abd Rahman , [2014] 6 MLJ 651 , p 46, wherein the court of Appeal held as follows:

"Malaysian courts have repeatedly given recognition to the rule that an administrator must have the sealed order of the High court before getting entangled in any legal proceedings in court..."

[15] However, there are exception to the general rule as stated above. The court of Appeal in the aforementioned case held at p 43 as follows:

"... The strict rule recently had been whittled down by the Federal court to say if there are 'special circumstances' the administrator will have locus to proceed with the legal proceedings (see Al Rashidy Kassim & Ors v. Rosman Roslan, [2007] 4 MLJ 297). This is notwithstanding the strict provision of s 39(1) of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 ..."

[16] In the present case, the plaintiff did not bring this action in the capacity as an administrator, but as a beneficiary and on behalf of other beneficiaries as well. In these circumstances, the 'special circumstance' which could avail her the locus standi to initiate this legal proceedings was not applicable.

[17] In Law Hock Key & Anor v. Yap Meng Kan & Ors, p 170, 2008 MarsdenLR 4366 , wherein the court of Appeal held as follows:

"...We are of the view that as the plaintiffs are claiming their deceased mother's right in the estate of her father Low Moh, deceased, the plaintiffs have to obtain the letters of administration in respect of the estate of their mother in order to entitle them to bring this action against the defendants. They have to establish that they have legal title to sue the defendants. They are the beneficiaries of their mother's estate but they are not the legal representatives of the estate as they had not applied for the letter of administration in respect of their mother's estate. As such, they have no locus standi to bring this action against the defendants. This issue has been decided by the Federal court in Deraman & Ors v. Mek Yam, [1977] 1 MLJ 52..."

[18] The above legal propositions of the higher courts are crystal clear in that only on the extraction of a grant of letter of administration would the plaintiff be said to be duly clothed with a representative character and have the locus standi to bring this action.

[19] The learned counsel for the defendants brought to the attention of this court a decision by the Singapore court of Appeal in Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v. Lee Peter Michael