The court emphasized that a plaintiff must have locus standi, which requires either being an executor or having obtained letters of administration to sue concerning a deceased estate. Without such authority, the action is unsustainable.

Introduction

[1] These three applications (collectively "striking out applications") were heard together.

(i) Enclosure 7 dated 27 January 2025. This is the 9th Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiffs ("P") writ and statement of claim.

(ii) Enclosure 11 dated 10 February 2025. This is the 7th and 8th Defendants' application to strike out P's writ and statement of claim.

(iii) Enclosure 12 dated 14 February 2025. This is the 1st to 6th Defendants' application to strike out P's writ and statement of claim.

[2] All three striking out applications are made under O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012. To wit, the writ and statement of claim discloses no reasonable cause of action. The striking out applications are premised on the ground that P has no locus standi to bring this action.

[3] As the striking out applications are filed pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012, no affidavit evidence is admissible (as stipulated in O 18 r 19(2) of the Rules of Court 2012). The Court is to consider only the pleadings for the purpose of determining whether to strike out P's claim. (See the Court of Appeal case of Harapan Permai Sdn Bhd v. Sabah Forest Industries Sdn Bhd 2010 MarsdenLR 3387 ; at 200; [2011] 1 CLJ 285).

[4] On 27 May 2025, I allowed the striking out applications and struck out P's suit herein. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[5] P, the 1st Defendant, the 7th Defendant, the 9th Defendant, the 10th Defendant and the 11th Defendant are all children of the late Tan Sai Hong ("deceased mother") and the late Teow Weng Hak. The deceased mother passed away on 12 November 2023.

[6] The 2nd Defendant is the wife of the 1st Defendant. The 3rd to 6th Defendants are the children of the 1st Defendant.

[7] The 8th Defendant is the wife of the 7th Defendant.

Plaintiff's Claim

[8] The main allegations raised by P against the Defendants in this suit can be summarized as follows:

(a) The deceased mother had been suffering from dementia since 2017. Her condition was kept from P by the Defendants.

(b) During the period when the deceased mother suffered from dementia, the Defendants had, through undue influence, dominion over her will, misconduct, deceit and fraud caused assets, properties, monies and jewellery belonging to the deceased mother to come under their care and control so that they can unjustly enrich themselves.

(c) In particular, the 1st Defendant had caused the deceased mother to give a power of attorney dated 18 December 2019 in his favour. And to transfer assets, including company shares, to him during her lifetime.

(d) The 1st Defendant and his family (the 2nd to 6th Defendants) had. committed fraud, misconduct, deceit, manipulation and undue influence on the deceased mother. They had siphoned off the assets and funds belonging to the deceased mother during her lifetime without accounting for the same.

(e) The 1st Defendant had, through undue influence on the deceased mother and by taking advantage of the deceased mother's dementia, got himself appointed as director of the deceased mother's companies. He was made a cheque signatory of the companies' accounts.

[9] It can be seen that the allegations raised by P in this action essentially relates to the properties, assets and financial affairs of the deceased mother transacted during her lifetime. Similarly, the reliefs sought by P against the Defendants mainly