Back
2026 MarsdenLR 661
HIGH COURT MALAYA JOHOR BAHRU
NORADURA HAMZAH, JC
WONG LEY HOON – Appellant
Versus
TEO SIEW HWA – Respondent
[Originating Summons No: JA-24NCVC-506-04/2026]
An administrator may be removed for 'sufficient cause' when there is a material breach of fiduciary duty, such as the unauthorized retention of estate assets or conduct reflecting a lack of even-handed regard for beneficiaries, causing an irreparable breakdown of trust and impeding the administration of the estate.
Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Section 4(2) and Section 34 - Revocation of appointment of administrator - Sufficient cause - The court must be satisfied to a high degree that an administrator is guilty of serious misconduct, has materially breached fiduciary duties, or is demonstrably unfit to continue in office. Mere dissatisfaction, disagreement over administration strategy, or delay, if reasonably explained and not prejudicial, does not suffice. (Paras 14, 18, 30)
(B) Administrator - Fiduciary duty - Retention of estate assets - An administrator holds estate property in a fiduciary capacity and must adhere to agreed arrangements regarding the custody of documentation. Unilateral assertion of control by an administrator over estate property in defiance of an agreed arrangement constitutes a material breach of fiduciary duty. (Paras 23, 24)
(C) Administrator - Conflict of interest - While the mere existence of a creditor's claim does not disqualify an administrator, the timing and manner of its assertion may be indicative of a lack of even-handed regard for the interests of all beneficiaries and may support a finding of sufficient cause for removal. (Paras 26)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff sought to remove the defendant as a co-administrator of an intestate estate. The parties had been appointed joint administrators to represent respective minor and adult beneficiaries. The plaintiff alleged the defendant had been uncooperative, delayed the administration, retained a trust account passbook contrary to an agreed arrangement, and improperly pressed a personal claim for maintenance against an illiquid estate.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the defendant's conduct regarding the retention of the trust account passbook for several months despite demands from her own legal advisers constituted a material breach of fiduciary duty. While no dishonesty was proven, this conduct showed a lack of the diligence and cooperation required of an administrator. The court further found that her attempt to demand personal maintenance arrears while the estate was struggling with liquidity issues demonstrated a lack of even-handed regard for beneficiaries. Balancing these findings against the interests of the beneficiaries, the court concluded that the breakdown of trust was irreparable and removal was necessary.
Issues: Whether "sufficient cause" existed under the relevant statute to revoke the defendant's appointment as co-administrator and whether the proposed substitute should be appointed.
Ratio Decidendi: Sufficient cause for removal under the relevant statute occurs where there is a material breach of fiduciary duty, evidenced by conduct that genuinely impedes administration and reflects a want of candour or impartiality, particularly where the trust between joint administrators has irretrievably broken down.
Result: Application allowed; defendant's appointment as co-administrator revoked and substitute appointed.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] Before me is the plaintiff's application by way of the Originating Summons dated 2 April 2026 (encl 1) to remove the defendant as one of the two joint administrators of the estate of the late Lee Kok Choon ("the deceased"), to appoint the deceased's elder brother, Lee Kuan Choon, as co-administrator in her place, to amend the Grant of Letters of Administration accordingly, and for consequential and ancillary relief.
Background Facts
[2] The deceased died intestate on 11 January 2024. He was survived by three persons who are the beneficiaries of his estate under the Distribution Act 1958, namely:
(a) the plaintiff, his lawful widow;
(b) Lee Jing Xuan, his elder son from his former marriage to the defendant, born on 25 February 2005; and
(c) Lee Zhe Yu, his younger son from his marriage to the plaintiff, born on 14 October 2014 and a minor at the date of the grant.
[3] The defendant was formerly married to the deceased. That marriage was dissolved by a Decree Nisi dated 23 April 2014 in Divorce Petition No.: 33NCvC-184-05/2013 in the High Court of Malaya at Muar. The defendant is the mother of and was granted the custody, care and control of, the elder son Lee Jing Xuan. She is not a beneficiary of the estate. She is employed as an accounts and human resources manager.
[4] Because a minority interest subsisted in the estate, the younger son being a minor, s 4(2) of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 [Act 97] required that administration be granted to not less than two individuals. By the agreement of the parties, the plaintiff and the defendant were appointed joint administrators, where the plaintiff represented the interest of her minor son and the defendant the interest of her son, the elder beneficiary. The LA was granted to them in Originating Summons No.: JA-31NCvC-750-06/2024 and was issued on 10 October 2024.
[5] The estate is of some substance and complexity. It comprises, among other things, shareholdings in two companies operated by the deceased in his lifetime (LNH Landscaping Sdn Bhd and LNH Asia Development Sdn Bhd), together with motor vehicles, immovable properties and bank accounts, as well as assets said to be held by the deceased on trust for the companies. The shares in the two companies have since been distributed to the beneficiaries in accordance with the Distribution Act 1958 [Act 300]. The balance of the estate remains substantially unadministered.
[6] The estate's liabilities, as disclosed in the List of Assets and Liabilities, include a sum of RM23,122.58 said to be due to the defendant as arrears of maintenance payable under the Decree Nisi. The defendant is, to that extent, a creditor of the estate.
The Application
[7] By encl 1 the plaintiff seeks, in substance, the following relief:
(a) revocation of the defendant's appointment as co-administrator under the LA;
(b) the appointment of the Proposed Co-Administrator, Lee Kuan Choon [NRIC No.: 660509-01-6413], as co-administrator in substitution for the defendant;
(c) amendment of the LA to substitute the name of the defendant with that of the Proposed Co-Administrator;
(d) delivery up by the defendant of all documents and records relating to the estate to the plaintiff and the Proposed Co-Administrator;
(e) leave to the plaintiff and the Proposed Co-Administrator to close or transfer the estate's trust account No.: 5104280808 with Public Bank Berhad and to transfer the moneys therein to a new trust account;
(f) leave to open a new trust account and to take such steps as are necessary for the administration of the estate; and
(g) costs.
[8] The plaintiff had first sought similar relief by an application filed on 5 February 2026 within the original administration suit. That application was withdrawn on the footing that a fresh proceeding ought to be commenced and the present Originating Summons was filed on 2 April 2026.
The Plaintiff's Case
[9] The plaintiff's case, in summary, is that the defendant has shown a persistent wa
