The court affirmed that Wills prevail over a family Deed regarding estate distribution, and beneficiaries lack locus standi to challenge distribution until the estate is fully administered.

Hashim Hamzah JCA:

Introduction

[1] For ease of reference, the parties in the present appeal shall be referred to as they were before the High Court below.

[2] This is the Defendant's appeal against the decision of the learned High Court Judge ("HCJ") dated 21 September 2023 in which the Defendant's application under O 14A of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC 2012") for the disposal of the case on point of law withou+t the full trial of the action ("Encl 8") was dismissed with costs of RM3,000.00, subject to an allocatur fee of 4%.

The Salient Facts

[3] The salient facts leading to the present appeal are as follows.

[4] Lou Pak Hoi @ Kwan Wong Moh ("LPH") passed away on 13 February 1986, leaving his last Will and Testament dated 5 November 1981 ("the LPH Will"). In the LPH Will, the late LPH had appointed his wife, See Toong Looi ("STL"), as the sole executrix of his estate and bequeathed all his assets to her.

[5] On 31 October 1986, STL passed away before she could obtain the grant of probate for LPH's estate, leaving the estate unadministered. The late STL left a Will and Testament dated 23 October 1986 ("the STL Will") in which she bequeathed all her inheritance from the late LPH's estate to her children. The Plaintiffs are the daughters of the late LPH and STL.

[6] In the STL Will, the late STL had also appointed her two sons, Loo Yu Pin @ Lou Yew Sing ("LYP") and Lou Ue Kuang @ Loo Yew Quing ("LUK"), as the executors and trustees of her estate.

[7] On 28 November 1996, the children of the late LPH and STL had agreed not to obtain any grant of probate from the LPH Will and the STL Will. They have also agreed to distribute the estates of the late LPH and STL according to the Deed of Family Arrangement and Settlement dated the same ("the Deed").

[8] LUK passed away on 22 June 1999, and LYP became the sole executor and trustee named in the STL Will. The Defendant, who was the wife of the late LUK, was appointed as the lawful administratix for her late husband's estate through the grant of a letter of administration dated 17 August 2001.

[9] On 15 August 2019, LYP was granted a grant of probate for the late STL's estate through Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No.: WA -32NCVC-2186-11/2018. However, there were no assets in the late STL's possession since the grant of probate for the late LPH's estate had not been obtained, and the assets in the LPH's estate had not been distributed to the late STL in accordance with the LPH Will before her demise.

[10] On 19 June 2020, through Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No.: WA -31NCvC-795-06/2020, a Letter of Administration with Will Annexed for the late LPH's estate was granted to LYP.

[11] On 26 April 2021, the Defendant was appointed as co-administrator of the late LPH's estate after her application to intervene in the proceeding was allowed by the Court .

[12] On 3 September 2021, LYP passed away. Upon application by the Defendant, which was allowed by the Court pursuant to an order dated 12 October 2021, the Defendant became the sole administratrix of the late LPH's estate.

[13] On 18 November 2021, the Defendant, without the Plaintiffs' knowledge, applied for the distribution of the assets of the fate LPH and STL pursuant to LPH's Will through Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summons No.: WA -24NCVC-2321-11/2021. The application was allowed by the Court on 19 January 2022 ("Distribution Order").

[14] On 6 December 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Application in Kuala Lumpur High Court Originating Summon No.: WA -31NCvC-795-06/2020 to seek leave to intervene and to be appointed and added as the co-administrators for the late LPH's estate. However, this application was dismissed by the Court on 14 December 2021.

[15] On 28 December 2021, the Plaintiffs filed a citation pursuant to O 72 rr 7 and 8 of the ROC 2012 in the same case. On 6 April 2022, pursuant to the said citation, the Court ordered that:

a. the Plaintiffs file a writ action (which was