fc_judgments: 1
Data source: lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources
This data as json
| _id | _item_id | tags | date | court | case-number | title | citation | url | counsel | timestamp | coram | html | _commit |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | dbf30c3797c94cc4fa7cc9950fc6e1f0d6b11649 | [
"Probate \u2013 Duties of Co-administrators \u2013 Estoppel"
] |
2023-12-22 | Family Court | FC/OSP 40/2022 | WSS v WST and another | [2023] SGFC 41 | https://www.lawnet.sg:443/lawnet/web/lawnet/free-resources?p_p_id=freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=%2FJudgment%2F30839-SSP.xml | [
"Benaiah Lim (Covenant Chambers LLC) for the plaintiff",
"Aylwin Tan (Mahmood Ghaznavi Chambers LLC) for the defendants"
] |
2023-12-27T16:00:00Z[GMT] | Shobha Nair | <root><head><title>WSS v WST and another</title></head><content><div class="contentsOfFile"> <h2 align="center" class="title"><span class="caseTitle"> WSS <em>v</em> WST and another </span><br><span class="Citation offhyperlink"><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/30839-SSP.xml')">[2023] SGFC 41</a></span></h2><table id="info-table"><tbody><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Case Number</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">FC/OSP 40/2022</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Decision Date</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">22 December 2023</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Tribunal/Court</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body">Family Court</td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Coram</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Shobha Nair </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Counsel Name(s)</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> Benaiah Lim (Covenant Chambers LLC) for the plaintiff; Aylwin Tan (Mahmood Ghaznavi Chambers LLC) for the defendants </td></tr><tr class="info-row"><td class="txt-label" style="padding: 4px 0px; white-space: nowrap" valign="top">Parties</td><td class="info-delim1" style="padding: 4px">:</td><td class="txt-body"> WSS — WST — WSU </td></tr></tbody></table> <p class="txt-body"><span style="font-style:italic">Probate</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Duties of Co-administrators</span> – <span style="font-style:italic">Estoppel</span></p> <p></p><table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td width="80%"><p class="Judg-Hearing-Date">22 December 2023</p></td><td><p class="Judg-Date-Reserved"></p></td></tr></tbody></table><p></p> <p class="Judg-Author"> District Judge Shobha Nair:</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Introduction</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_1"></a>1 The parties are co-administrators and the only beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff is the wife of the deceased, and the defendants are the lawful children of the deceased from the latter’s previous marriage. The plaintiff sought orders under Rule 786 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 and Sections 5 and 7 of the Intestate Succession Act 1967. Essentially, she applied for a declaratory order that she had rendered a just and true account of the estate of the deceased and sought permission to distribute to the beneficiaries of the estate their respective shares, after discharging the debts and liabilities of the estate. I allowed the application. The defendants appeal against the same, the notice of appeal having been filed on 22 September 2023. Leave was granted in HCF/OSP 6/2023 to extend the time to file the notice as attempts to do so within legislated timelines were unsuccessful for various reasons. There is no appeal against the order on costs.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Factual Background</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_2"></a>2 The deceased passed away on 21 April 2020. The parties jointly applied for and obtained a grant of letters of administration for the estate. The order in terms of the prayer for such appointment in FC/P 2371/2020 was granted on 30 June 2020. An estate account was set up by the plaintiff for which the parties were joint signatories. The Schedule of Assets was filed 9 months later on 15 March 2021 with a supplementary affidavit signed by all parties confirming the accuracy of the Schedule. Subsequently, the grant of letters of administration was issued on 3 June 2021.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_3"></a>3 In his lifetime, the deceased had set up an electrical engineering business which was registered as a private limited company. It ceased operations in 2018 which is approximately 2 years prior to his passing. Among the assets of this business was a property along Aljunied Road (Aljunied property). The Aljunied property comprised an office and a factory.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_4"></a>4 In June 2020, the plaintiff engaged in discussions with the defendants on the sale of this Aljunied property. The parties agreed that it should be sold. This meant that there was a need to clear the property of chattels to enable delivery of vacant possession to the eventual purchaser.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_5"></a>5 On 15 August 2020, there was a meeting between the parties at the Aljunied property and the defendants were informed of the need to dispose the chattels. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants agreed to let the plaintiff handle the disposal. The plaintiff accordingly engaged a contractor who disposed the chattels on 1 December 2020. The plaintiff claimed that she received $1 000 for this and deposited the same into the business account on 3 December 2020. The sale of the Aljunied property was completed on 14 October 2021 and an amount of $687 616.71 was received and deposited into the estate account.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_6"></a>6 The plaintiff then took steps to divide the estate monies, but the defendants were initially unresponsive to the plaintiff’s request to endorse the accounts of the estate prepared by her and later resistant to the plaintiff’s account of how she dealt with the chattels at the Aljunied property. On 3 January 2022, the plaintiff received a letter demanding that she provide a just and true account of the estate of the deceased. The defendants disputed the position of the plaintiff that they had consented to her disposing the chattels, pointing to a lack of information on when it was to be disposed and a lack of agreement on the value that it could be disposed for. They alleged that the plaintiff must have received a much higher sum than declared as the chattels comprised more than wires and scrap material. They suggested that she may have pocketed the proceeds.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">The legal principles</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_7"></a>7 In <b><em>Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd</em></b> v <b><em>Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Ching Miow)</em></b><span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_1" id="Ftn_1_1"><sup>[note: 1]</sup></a></span> the Court of Appeal, having considered conflicting authorities on the point, was of the view that administrators of an estate must act jointly and the act of one administrator cannot be said to be binding on the estate unless the other administrators had ratified the same.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_2" id="Ftn_2_1"><sup>[note: 2]</sup></a></span></p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_8"></a>8 Where an administrator and a third party enter into an agreement, the co-administrator cannot challenge that agreement if there is clear and unequivocal representation on his part that he had consented to the agreement. This consent can be implied.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_3" id="Ftn_3_1"><sup>[note: 3]</sup></a></span> Silence or a lack of action alone however would not be sufficient to indicate consent.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_4" id="Ftn_4_1"><sup>[note: 4]</sup></a></span> As seen in <b><em>Tacplas</em></b> however, there is a line recognised to exist between mere silence and silence even when there was a duty to act. A lack of action by a co-administrator when there is a duty to act may give rise to arguments rooted in the doctrine of estoppel.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Application of the Facts</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_9"></a>9 It was the position of the plaintiff that there was only scrap material and wire at the premises and that she had the consent of the defendants in disposing these to deliver vacant possession to the buyers. It was the contention of the defendants however, that they had seen much more than scrap material and wires when they visited the premises in August 2020. As a contractor himself, the first defendant said he was able to provide an estimate of the value and did so as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_5" id="Ftn_5_1"><sup>[note: 5]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2-tblr"><colgroup><col width="49.72%"><col width="50.28%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Cables and Wires</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$6 000+</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Electrical components</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">approximately $2 000</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="br" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Tools and Equipment</p> </td><td align="left" class="b" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">$3 000 to $4 000</p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="r" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Other metal materials</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">approximately $4 000</p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_10"></a>10 In the affidavit of the first defendant, he exhibited messages<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_6" id="Ftn_6_1"><sup>[note: 6]</sup></a></span> sent on <em>WhatsApp</em> messenger between him and the children of the plaintiff.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_7" id="Ftn_7_1"><sup>[note: 7]</sup></a></span> Part of the exchange on 3 July 2021 is reproduced as follows:<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_8" id="Ftn_8_1"><sup>[note: 8]</sup></a></span></p> <table align="left" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="Judg-2" frame="none" pgwide="1"><colgroup><col width="44.12%"><col width="55.88%"></colgroup><tbody><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">First Respondent (1<sup>st</sup> R):</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>Where are all the thing in the factory?</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">Applicant’s children (AC):</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>Sold and cleared</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup> R: </p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>and the money recovered?</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">AC:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>Paid off the debts</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup> R:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>please clearly indicate thanks</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">AC:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>Yup. Got all the invoices</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup> R:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>I don’t think it is right to find out that things are done without out knowledge. If my memory serves me well I think I am still 1 of the administrators i think it is by law I should be inform of anything thing don’t you agree?</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">AC:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>When you met at the office, got ask you if you wanted. And you said to clear.</em> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">1<sup>st</sup> R:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <b><em>yes I did but wasn’t inform when.</em></b> </p> </td></tr><tr><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1">AC:</p> </td><td align="left" class="" rowspan="1" valign="top"> <p align="justify" class="Table-Para-1"> <em>Does it matter?</em> </p> </td></tr></tbody></table><br clear="left"><br clear="left"> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_11"></a>11 The defendants’ dissatisfaction with the accounts produced by the plaintiff was due in part to the fact that the name of the individual who the plaintiff first indicated had disposed the chattels turned out to be inaccurate. This led to the plaintiff providing the name of a representative of the management agency that ran the Aljunied Industrial Complex as an alternative. This representative informed the first defendant that the plaintiff dealt directly with the contractor. The plaintiff shared that this contractor was a “specialist collection company”. The representative shared that he informed the plaintiff that she should check with all the stakeholders before disposing the items.<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_9" id="Ftn_9_1"><sup>[note: 9]</sup></a></span> The representative of the management agency did not however file an affidavit. The defendants believe that the lack of proper information on the disposal company points to the plaintiff’s mismanagement of the business assets.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_12"></a>12 I was of the view on the totality of the evidence that the plaintiff had discharged her obligations as an administrator and the orders reflect this position. My reasons are as follows:</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_13"></a>13 On 15 August 2020, the plaintiff had asked the defendants for their attendance at the Aljunied property. They were told by the plaintiff to take from the property anything that they had wanted to keep, and the defendants had accordingly taken some items. The plaintiff could not recall what the specific items were. I had asked for clarification from the defendants’ counsel as to whether there was anything taken by their clients belonging to the deceased which were not included in the Schedule of Assets. The counsel by way of correspondence to the Court on 31 January 2023 confirmed that the first defendant had taken a mobile phone and a smart watch while the second defendant had taken a gold ring. These were allowed by the plaintiff. No value was ascribed to them, and these are not reflected in the Schedule of Assets. These were in fact taken prior to the filing of the Schedule of Assets and the supplementary affidavit confirming the accuracy of the Schedule by both the plaintiff and the defendants on 15 March 2021 and before the issuance of the grant.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_14"></a>14 The Schedule of Assets similarly makes no reference to the chattels at the Aljunied property that is the subject of this dispute. If there was a view by the defendants that these were assets of the business and that these were of significant value, this Schedule would not have been endorsed, or should not have been endorsed, by them. They chose to confirm the accuracy of the Schedule by way of their supplementary affidavit affirmed on 4 March 2021 and filed on 15 March 2021. Additionally, other than what the first defendant says the value of the chattels seen at the property is likely to be, a view anchored in the fact that he is a contractor by vocation and appreciates the value of equipment, there is little basis to support this position. In his tabulation, he refers to items generally and estimates value without any indication of possible depreciation or whether these were working items, even on the tenuous assumption that he recalls what he saw at the meeting in 2020 with sufficient clarity. While it is clear from the <em>WhatsApp</em> messages that the first defendant did not agree that the value of the disposed items could be accepted at $1 000, he appears to have agreed to it being disposed. He appears to have been satisfied with the plaintiff doing the needful to dispose those items. It was never the desire of the plaintiff to oversee all matters. The fact that the defendants were comfortable with her handling the estate is telling. To point to the fact that the plaintiff was the sole director of the business after the deceased’s passing and was therefore better placed to handle matters relating to the business premises at Aljunied does not place on her a higher burden as co-administrator. She certainly owes fiduciary duties to beneficiaries of which she is one, to call, collect and convert assets into cash and to pay towards funeral and testamentary expenses as well as debts and other liabilities of the estate (<b><em>VIK </em></b><em>v </em><b><em>VIL & Ors</em></b>).<span class="FootnoteRef"><a href="#Ftn_10" id="Ftn_10_1"><sup>[note: 10]</sup></a></span> This is equally applicable to the defendants as co-administrators. The plaintiff was not standing in the way of the defendants’ involvement as co-administrators even as it relates to the business of the deceased. What may have been a convenient arrangement for the defendants to leave it to the plaintiff given her directorship, it should not now be used to defend a lack of action on the part of the defendants on the specific issue of the chattels at the Aljunied property when there was always a duty to act.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_15"></a>15 The business ceased operations for 2 years prior to the passing of the deceased. It is unclear what remained at the premises and its value. The defendants did not appear to know and instead appear to have had very little care when parties met at the premises on 15 August 2020, at least until a value that they were not comfortable with was presented. The document that was produced and which shows an amount of $1 000 having been received suggests that the items after approximately 2 years since the business ceased, had depreciated significantly. I accept that the document speaks little about the items that were disposed, who disposed it and how the value was determined. Other than the defendants’ disbelief however, there was no evidence to show clearly that the plaintiff had falsely reported the facts in particular the value of the chattels. The difference between the plaintiff’s position that they were valued at $1 000 and the defendants’ estimation of $16 000 is $15 000. The value of the items that were taken by the defendants from the premises which are not accounted for in the Schedule of Assets may be of equal or more value. If anything, the administration by all the parties may be said to be lacking in diligence.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_16"></a>16 It would be practically impossible for the plaintiff to retrace steps to prove the value today. Vacant possession was delivered to the buyers with the consent of all the administrators. The timing of the deposit of the $1 000 into the business account, i.e., on 3 December 2020, suggests that the plaintiff had accounted for the money shortly after it was received and did not do so only upon the threat of legal action. The likelihood of this being a fabrication was low, especially as pointed out above, the items were not stated in the Schedule. The defendants did not question the omission in the Schedule. They were in fact allowed to retain personal belongings of the deceased and the defendants did so without any concern that these should typically be included in the Schedule of Assets, rationalising it as something that the plaintiff permitted. Even though the <em>WhatsApp</em> exchanges between the plaintiff or through her children and the defendant, more particularly the first defendant, were often tense, the defendants were content to continue relying on the plaintiff to do all that was necessary to call in the assets and prepare for distribution. What effectively stands against the plaintiff in taking steps to discharge the debts of the estate and distribute the assets is the issue of the disposal of items carried out in 2020 which is challenged on an unsupported allegation that it was valued at about $16 000. This comes after consenting to have the plaintiff take steps to dispose the items. The difficulty in going beyond what has been documented by the plaintiff and the Schedule makes any further enquiry likely to be futile while adding costs disproportionate to the value of the subject in dispute.</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_17"></a>17 The defendants took the position that there was no need for a “specialist collection company” to take away scrap material and that could have been left to a rag-and-bone man. The fact that it was not done by a rag-and-bone man, they contend, must mean that the items were much more than scrap material. There was no evidence to support such a conclusion. Having said that, it can be safely assumed that there are many disposal companies in Singapore, and they transact in different ways. While the plaintiff could certainly have done things better even though she may not have realised the gravity of poor record keeping at the time and could have insisted on better documentation from the company that disposed the items, the picture that the evidence paints is one that suggests that she had the endorsement of the defendants to act in the way she did. The timing of the disposal which was well before the letters of administration were granted and the lack of reference to the items in the Schedule accepted by all parties, provide relevant context supporting this application.</p> <p class="Judg-Heading-1">Conclusion</p> <p class="Judg-1"><a id="p1_18"></a>18 The defendants had effectively given the plaintiff the task of managing key matters in the administration of the estate when they could have been more actively involved in the same. The defendants as co-administrators are not spectators who sit back and approve or disapprove the performance of the main player, in this case, the plaintiff. Even if the defendants were comfortable to allow or felt compelled to allow the plaintiff to take control of matters, the plaintiff had in fact taken steps to engage the defendants on the issue of the items at the Aljunied property. The agreement to allow the plaintiff to dispose the items but later sharing their discomfort with not having been informed of the date she was going to do it or the value that was offered, may certainly suggest a lack of unequivocal representation of consent. The first defendant’s affirmative answer when asked by the plaintiff if she could dispose the items however, and by not taking any steps to have it valued himself make the challenge by the defendants, in the larger context of the other factors highlighted above, unmeritorious. The delay in administering the estate over this dispute has also stood in the way of attending to the debts and liabilities of the estate fully and the plaintiff had in my view, little choice but to seek the orders that she did.</p> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_1_1" id="Ftn_1">[note: 1]</a></sup><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/3814-M.xml')">[2000] SGCA 5</a></p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_2_1" id="Ftn_2">[note: 2]</a></sup>Paragraphs 38 and 39</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_3_1" id="Ftn_3">[note: 3]</a></sup>Paragraph 62</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_4_1" id="Ftn_4">[note: 4]</a></sup>See also <b><em>Foo Gee Finance Co Ltd </em></b><em>v </em><b><em>Liu Cho Chit and another action</em></b> [1998] 2 SLR 121</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_5_1" id="Ftn_5">[note: 5]</a></sup>Page 6 of the first defendant’s affidavit of 27 October 2022</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_6_1" id="Ftn_6">[note: 6]</a></sup>Similar exhibits are found in the plaintiff’s affidavit of 25 November 2022 at Tab 1</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_7_1" id="Ftn_7">[note: 7]</a></sup>Tab 1 of the affidavit of first defendant dated 27 October 2022</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_8_1" id="Ftn_8">[note: 8]</a></sup>Without edits</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_9_1" id="Ftn_9">[note: 9]</a></sup>See in particular page 73 of the plaintiff’s second affidavit of 25 November 2022 for full text of the discussion in this regard.</p><p class="Footnote"><sup><a href="#Ftn_10_1" id="Ftn_10">[note: 10]</a></sup><a class="pagecontent" href="javascript:viewPageContent('/Judgment/24850-SSP.xml')">[2020] SGHCF 12</a></p></div></content></root> | 1274 |
Links from other tables
- 1 row from _item in fc_judgments_version