SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 MarsdenLR 1131

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LEE HIONG KIAT & ORS – Appellant
Versus
LEE TIN HUI & ANOR – Respondent
[Originating Summons No WA-24NCVC-2225-06/2023]



Petitioner Advocates:Goh Siu Lin,Denise Lim Hsui Yen ,Respondent Advocate: Cyndi Chow Li Kian,Megan Choo Wen Shin

Executors have a fiduciary duty to furnish estate accounts to beneficiaries upon lawful demand, but requests must be reasonable and within the scope of their duties.

Headnote:(A) Probate and Administration Act 1959 - Sections 2 and 62 - Duty of executors to furnish accounts - Executors must provide beneficiaries with accounts of the estate upon lawful demand - Executors are under fiduciary duties to beneficiaries - Failure to provide accounts can lead to legal action. (Paras 22-28)

(B) Executors' obligations - Executors must keep proper accounts and inform beneficiaries about the estate's administration - Executors are entitled to reasonable time to complete accounts, especially in complex situations. (Paras 34-36)

(C) Application dismissed - Plaintiffs' request for accounts covering the period before the deceased's death was deemed unreasonable - Court emphasized that the executors must be allowed to fulfill their duties without undue pressure. (Paras 50-51)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs sought audited accounts of the estate of the deceased, claiming delays and lack of transparency from the executors, who were also beneficiaries. The deceased's will appointed the defendants as joint executors. (Paras 1-4)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the executors had provided sufficient accounts and that the plaintiffs' demands for accounts prior to the deceased's death were unreasonable. The executors were allowed time to finalize the estate accounts. (Paras 34-46)

Issues: Whether the executors had a duty to provide accounts for the estate prior to the deceased's death and whether the plaintiffs' demands were reasonable. (Paras 22-28)

Ratio Decidendi: Executors are required to furnish accounts to beneficiaries upon demand, but such requests must be reasonable and within the scope of their duties. The court ruled that the executors had acted properly and should not be unduly pressured. (Paras 22-28)

Result: Application dismissed; costs awarded to defendants.

JUDGMENT

Ahmad Shahrir Mohd Salleh J:

Introduction

[1] In this originating summons, the plaintiffs made an application for an order that the defendants as the joint executors do furnish them with the audited account of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiffs sought to have the audited account dating back six months prior to the demise of the deceased up to the period of two weeks immediately preceding the date of the Order.

[2] After perusing the application and the affidavits and considering the position of the respective parties as deliberated in their submissions, I dismissed the application with RM3,000.00 cost for each defendant. The plaintiffs were not satisfied and appealed.

Brief Background Facts

The Will

[3] The late Madam Lee Pheck Hong made a Will dated 01 April 2017. In the Will, she named the defendants and the plaintiffs as the beneficiaries. The deceased also appointed both the defendants as the trustees and joint executors of the Will.

[4] Under the Will, the deceased devised and bequeathed her Estate to the plaintiffs and the defendants as follows:

Lee Tin Hui (1st defendant)

(a) all monies and savings in United Overseas Bank (M) Berhad at Jalan Raja Laut branch, Kuala Lumpur held under Fixed Deposit No 151-006-496-3 ("UOB KL FD 496"),

(b) all monies and savings in:-

(i) Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd of Chulia Street, OCBC Centre, Singapore 049513 held under Current Account No 508-300-159001 ("OCBC Singapore Current Account"); and

(ii) the Central Provident Fund Board bearing Account No S-0787812-E ("CPF Singapore"),

(c) all jewelleries and personal effects kept in safe deposit box No 975, United Oversea Bank Berhad of Jalan Raja Laut branch, Kuala Lumpur ("UOB KL SDB"),

Lee Tin Nee (2nd defendant)

(d) an apartment bearing the address Apartment Block 106, Simei Street 1, # 06-816 Singapore 52106 erected on a piece of land held under Volume 362, Folio 67, Mukim 28, Lot 04186 and Strata Lot 4186/U325 ("Apartment 106 Singapore"),

(e) all monies and savings at HSBC Bank Malaysia Berhad of the Damansara Utama branch, Petaling Jaya held under:-

(i) Current Account No 316.102300.108 ("HSBC PJ Current Account"); and

(ii) Time Deposit Account No 316.102300131 ("HSBC PJ Time Deposit"),

(f) all monies and savings in United Overseas Bank (M) Berhad at Jalan Raja Laut branch, Kuala Lumpur held under Savings Account No 151-315-156-5 ("UOB KL Savings Account"),

Lee Tin Hui (1st defendant) and Lee Tin Nee (2nd defendant) in equal shares

(g) all monies and savings in RHB Bank Berhad at Bangsar Shopping Centre, Bangsar branch, Kuala Lumpur held under Current Account No 214-33430000184 ("RHB KL Current Account"),

Lee Hiong Kiat (1st plaintiff) and Kee Chai Hong (2nd plaintiff) in equal shares

(h) all monies and savings at United Overseas Bank (M) Berhad at Jalan Raja Laut branch, Kuala Lumpur held under:-

(i) Current Account No 151-300-037-0 ("UOB KL Current Account"); and

(ii) Time/Fixed Deposit Account No 151-006-492-0 ("UOB KL FD 492"),

Lee Zwohann Austen (3rd plaintiff) and Lee Zwoyang Ryan (4th plaintiff) in equal shares

(i) all fully paid-up shares and stocks in Singapore held under CDS Account No 1681-0809-3488 ("Singapore CDS Account"),

Lee Hiong Kiat (1st plaintiff), Lee Tin Nee (2nd defendant), Lee Tin Hui (1st defendant) and Kee Chai Hong (2nd plaintiff) in equal shares

(j) the whole residuary estate both movable and immovable and of whatsoever nature or description and wheresoever situated now and/or hereafter acquired, subject to and after payment of all debts, funeral and testamentary expenses and duty, if any ("Residuary Estate").

[5] Two days after she made the Will, the deceased passed on. Six months later on 04 October 2017, the Grant of Probate was extracted and administration of the Estate was granted to the 1st and 2nd defendants as joint executors. Approximately two months after that, the 1st defendant circulated to all the beneficiaries including the plaintiffs information relating to the progress of the administration of t


Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top