Court reaffirms that executors cannot be arbitrarily passed over without valid grounds; entitlement to funds from joint accounts depends on the Will's provisions, not survivorship clauses.

Introduction

[1] There are two matters before me. One is Suit No: PA-22NCvC-201-12/2023 ("this suit"). The other is Originating Summons No: PA-32NCvC-127-02/2024 ("probate application"). The probate application was transferred to this court pursuant to an order of court dated 8 October 2024. At a case management on 20 November 2024, I directed that both matters be heard together.

[2] In this suit, the Plaintiff ("P") wants the Defendants, who have been named as the executors under the Will of the deceased, to be passed over. The Defendants in turn counterclaim for a grant of probate to be granted to them pursuant to the probate application. After a full trial, I dismiss P's claim and allow the Defendants' counterclaim. Here are the grounds of my judgment.

Background facts

[3] The deceased is the late mother of P, the Defendants and DW4. She passed away on 10 December 2022 at the age of 88 years old. She left behind an estate estimated to be worth close to RM 200 million in Malaysia alone. She also has assets in Singapore, Australia, Hong Kong and China. She died leaving a Will dated 27 October 2022 ("Will").

[4] The Deceased died leaving 4 children, 2 daughters-in-law, 1 son-in-law, 13 grandchildren and 8 great-grandchildren. There is a total of 32 beneficiaries under the Will, which include the aforementioned family members, extended family members and some friends.

[5] The 2nd Defendant ("D2") is the eldest son of the deceased. DW4 is the second son of the deceased. P is the youngest son of the deceased. The 1st Defendant ("D1") is their sister.

[6] The Will provides for 2 categories of executors, namely 'Category A Trustee' and 'Category B Trustee'. D1 is named as the primary Category A Trustee. D2 is named as the primary Category B Trustee.

[7] The material events which transpired after the demise of the deceased can be summarised as follows:

Plaintiff's case

[8] P's case is this. He does not dispute the existence and contents of the Will. He wants the Defendants to be passed over as the executors of the estate of the deceased because they had intentionally delayed the filing of the probate application.

[9] The probate application was filed in February 2024, although the Defendants could have filed it in June 2023. Further, the Defendants have not acted fairly in the administration of the deceased's estate. P seeks an order to pass over the Defendants as the executors even before they are granted probate, as there is animosity between him and the Defendants.

[10] P submits as follows:

(a) The Defendants' own lawyer, DW1, testified that they could have filed the probate application in June 2023. However, the Defendants had filed the probate application only on 2 February 2024. Which is about 1 year and 2 months after the demise of the deceased on 10 December 2022. And more than a month after P had filed this suit on 19 December 2023.

(b) This shows that if P had not filed this suit, the Defendants would not have filed the probate application. The intention to delay, in particular to prevent P from obtaining his beneficial interest from the estate of the deceased, is evident from the conduct of the Defendants.

(c) There is enmity between P and D2, in particular. The Defendants have acted mala fide and have practised double standard in relation to the withdrawal of the joint fixed deposits held by P with the deceased. They had demanded for the return of the same to the estate. Whereas the same demand was not issued to others, including D1, who had uplifted the joint fixed