JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon J:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiffs filed a notice of application dated 11 September 2024 in Encl 9 for discovery of the documents that are set out in Appendix A thereto ("subject documents"). Enclosure 9 is made under O 24 r 3, r 7, r 10 and r 13 of the Rules of 2012.

[2] On 25 February 2025, I allowed the Plaintiffs' application for discovery in Encl 9. Here are the grounds of my decision.

Background Facts

[3] The Plaintiffs and the Defendants are the children of the late Tan Ah Kow @ Tan Aik Cheah ("father") and his late wife, Tan Sai Hoay ("mother"). The father died testate on 8 October 2021 at the age of 87.

[4] Under the father's last Will dated 7 July 2008, the Defendants were appointed as the executors of his estate. On 22 March 2022, a grant of probate was granted which appointed the Defendants as the executors of the estate of the father.

[5] The Plaintiffs are among the beneficiaries of the estate of the father. Pursuant to a citation dated 1 April 2024, the Plaintiffs (as the beneficiaries of the estate of the father) commenced this suit against the Defendants.

The Plaintiffs' Case

[6] The Plaintiffs' case is this.

[7] During the distribution of the assets from the estate of the father, they discovered that the list of asset of the father is inconsistent with the statement of account given by the Defendants through their solicitors. It did not cover all the father's cash in hand and assets. They then demanded that the Defendants disclose the full list of asset of the father, which the Defendants refused to comply with.

[8] Before the demise of the mother on 8 January 2016, a property situated at Jalan Residensi, Georgetown, Penang ("property") was co-owned by the 1st Defendant ("D1") and the mother in equal shares. After her death, the mother's half undivided share in the property was transferred to the father via a Form 14A memorandum of transfer dated 10 April 2018.

[9] On the same day, D1 and the father entered into a deed of gift dated 10 April 2018 ("deed of gift"). The deed of gift was prepared by Messrs Mureli Navaratnam. Pursuant to the deed of gift, the aforementioned half undivided share in the property was transferred from the father to D1. Following the said transfer, the property is presently fully owned by D1.

[10] However, given that:

(a) the father is illiterate and could not write, read, understand and comprehend English and Bahasa Malaysia during his lifetime;

(b) the father was unrepresented by lawyer in the deed of gift, whilst D1 was represented by Messrs Mureli Navaratnam;

(c) no jurat for translation was used during the father's signing of the form of declaration (borang akuan) before an Indian Commissioner for Oaths. In contrast, the last Will of the father states that "The Testator not being fluent or unable to read in the English language this Will was read to him in Hokkien";

(d) the father's health had deteriorated progressively and his mental capacity had been diminishing;

(e) the father became fully dependent on D1, after the passing of the mother in January 2016; and

(f) the father was not in a position to fully understand what he has been signing,

D1 had exerted undue influence and dominance on the father to execute the transfer documents of the property. Therefore, the transfer of the half undivided share in the property from the father to D1 is void. D1 must restore the half undivided share of the property to the estate of the father.

[11] The Defendants are in breach of their fiduciary duties to act in the best interest of the beneficiaries of the estate of the father. In particular:

(a) they failed to answer the legitimate queries made by the Plaintiffs, being the beneficiaries of the estate of the father;

(b) they failed to render a full and proper account of the assets of the estate of the father, in particular the moveable assets of the father;

(c) they have refused to provide the bank statements of the father, to confirm the actual cash in hand left by the father;

(d) they fail