JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] By way of the Originating Summons dated 9 April 2025 [encl 1], the plaintiff seeks declarations that, amongst others, cl 16 of Woo Teh Shan's Last Will and Testament dated 26 April 2007 ("Last Will and Testament") be amended and substituted in accordance with the relevant parties' consent order said to have been recorded before Her Ladyship Justice Hue Siew Kheng on 8 September 2016 ("Consent Order"). Additionally, the plaintiff seeks to correct a typographical error relating to a property mentioned in cl 17 of the Last Will and Testament.

[2] In challenging the Consent Order, the defendant claims that the plaintiff and the plaintiff's brother, Woo Wei Kwang, had not reached consensus ad idem on the issues addressed in the purported Consent Order.

[3] Also of note, in this case, no Consent Order was drawn and perfected despite the fact that Justice Hue Siew Kheng recorded the terms

A Brief Overview of the Facts

[4] Woo Teh Shan ("the deceased") is the late father of the plaintiff.

[5] He also had another son, Woo Wei Kwang.

[6] Before his death, the deceased made his Last Will and Testament on 26 April 2007.

[7] Woo Wei Kwang was the 1st Executor of the deceased's estate.

[8] On 10 October 2017, Woo Wei Kwang passed away.

[9] His death occurred before the administration of the deceased's estate was completed.

[10] The defendant was then appointed executor of Woo Wei Kwang's estate on 30 May 2018.

[11] In the wake of his appointment, the defendant disputed the plaintiff's claim to be the estate's substitute or alternate executor.

[12] There followed several years of litigation between the plaintiff and defendant up to the Court of Appeal.

[13] On 6 July 2022, the Court of Appeal ruled that the plaintiff is the alternative executor of the deceased's estate, replacing Woo Wei Kwang.

[14] The dispute has its roots at the time when Woo Wei Kwang obtained the executorship of the deceased's estate through Originating Summons No WA-32NCvC-795-05/2016 ("OS 795").

[15] The dispute involved two clauses of the Last Will and Testament. They are cl 16 and cl 17, which read as follows:

[16] I give my factory known as LOT 31, JALAN PENGASAH 15/13, 40000 SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR to my son WOO WEI KWANG NRIC No. 741006-14-5699 and my son WOO WEI LIANG NRIC No 700311-10-6417 in equal shares but if one of them does not survive me, then the other named beneficiary in this clause shall be the sole beneficiary of this gift.

[17] I give my factory known as No 33, JALAN PENGASAH 15/73, 40000 SHAH ALAM, SELANGOR to my son WOO WEI KWANG NRIC No 741006-14-5699 and my son WOO WEI LIANG NRIC No 700311-10-6417 in equal shares but if one of them does not survive me, then the other named beneficiary in this clause shall be the sole beneficiary of this gift.

[16] OS 795 had been the subject of a caveat filed by the plaintiff, as caveator.

[17] The plaintiff's objection was that, according to cl 16 of the Last Will and Testament, the deceased had given the plaintiff and Woo Wei Kwang equal shares of Lot 31, Jalan Pengasah 15/13, 40000 Shah Alam.

[18] Thus, the plaintiff alleged that there was a typographical error in cl 16, where Woo Wei Kwang's name appears twice when it should be Woo Wei Kwang's name and the plaintiff's name.

[19] In respect of cl 17, the plaintiff claimed that it should have read Lot 33 Jalan Pengasah 15/13 rather than Jalan Pengasah 15/73. The reason for this is that both lots are located at the same location and on the same road, both of which were bequeathed to the plaintiff and Woo Wei Kwang.

[20] Justice Hue Siew Kheng, who was presiding over this dispute on 22 August 2016, encouraged the parties to attempt to settle the matter amicably. The Notes of Proceedings in this regard are as follows:

DI HADAPAN YA DATO' HUE SIEW KHENG

DALAM KAMAR

NOTA PROSIDING

Isnin, 22 Ogos 2016

No. Kandungan : 1

Jenis Prosiding : A-Track

Peguam Pemohon : Derrick Chan

Peguam Responden :

Peguam: Ajeet Kaur & S.M Wong

MINIT:

Derrick Chan bp A