High Court Appoints Interim Administrator to Preserve Status Quo of Disputed Estate

Introduction

Section 20 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 (“Section 20“) plays a crucial role in safeguarding an estate’s assets during the often protracted and lengthy process of probate litigation. This statutory provision ensures that the status quo is maintained via appointment of an interim administrator, preventing potential mismanagement or asset depletion pending resolution of disputes over the validity of a will or appointment of a permanent administrator. In a landscape where family dynamics and financial stakes can complicate matters, Section 20 serves as a vital tool to protect the interests of all parties involved, reinforcing the principle that the preservation of estate assets is paramount pending a definitive resolution.

The team of Gregory Vijayendran SC and Tomoyuki Lewis Ban of Rajah & Tann Singapore (instructed by Mr Lee Ee Yang, Ms Sara Ng and Mr Darryl Lau of Covenant Chambers LLC) successfully represented a client in an application for an interim administrator pending the outcome of a probate dispute with his relatives. This cross-firm collaboration culminated in a rare, published judicial decision in Singapore regarding interim administration in XBW v XBX and another [2024] SGHCF 30 (“XBW“).

 XBW is instructive on the criteria for a grant of letters of administration pending determination of a probate claim.

Background

In a nutshell, after the Plaintiff’s mother passed away on 5 May 2023, the Plaintiff applied for the grant of letters of administration of his mother’s estate. However, his relatives claimed to be executrices in a will executed by his mother in 2004, the original of which had allegedly been lost. His relatives filed a separate probate action vide HCF/S 9/2023 (“Suit 9“) in November 2023 to propound the lost will.

With a view to preserve assets in his mother’s estate, the Plaintiff applied for an interim order pursuant to Section 20 for the grant of letters of administration pending the trial of Suit 9. Following the filing of his application, the parties initially reached an agreement on 8 February 2024 to appoint an independent interim administrator. Surprisingly however, the relatives subsequently refused to formalise the agreement. The Plaintiff therefore pressed on with his application.

Given the dearth of local authorities on Section 20, the Plaintiff’s solicitors made detailed submissions on how Section 20 is to operate, in particular, the criteria for a grant pendente lite (or grant of letters of administration pending determination of a probate claim). The Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck (“Justice Choo“) accepted the Plaintiff’s submissions.

In summary, Section 20 operates to empower an interim administrator to preserve the status quo of a disputed estate and to allow a grant of letters of administration. This is subject to three necessary conditions, namely that the letters of administration must be:

  1. granted “pending any probate action”;
  2. limited so that the administrator shall not be empowered to distribute the estate; and
  3. subject to such control by and direction of the Court as the Court thinks fit.

Additionally, the Plaintiff also highlighted to the Court the real risk of dissipation of the Estate’s assets by the Deceased’s siblings. Justice Choo concurred with the Plaintiff’s submissions, noting that the evidence suggested that one of the executrices might have taken a substantial amount of money from the Deceased’s estate for undisclosed reasons. Consequently, the court considered it prudent to appoint an interim administrator to maintain the status quo and to ensure that the estate’s movables were not improperly moved.

In its coda, Justice Choo recorded a commendation to both sides’ Counsel for exemplary submissions that “were not only clear and to the point, but also well structured.

Concluding Remarks

We conclude with two observations on Justice Choo’s decision in XBW:

  1. Although Section 20 does not explicitly require that the estate’s assets be in jeopardy for the appointment of an interim administrator, presenting such evidence could strengthen the claimant’s hand to persuade the court of the necessity to appoint an interim administrator pending determination of the probate action.
  1. The Plaintiff’s solicitors also made submissions relying on a leading English treatise of Williams, Mortimer and Sunnucks on Executors, Administrators and Probate (21st Edition) that the object of the grant pendente lite is to ensure that the estate of the deceased is managed and preserved for the benefit of those found to be entitled thereto. Practically, such applications are made in connection with the sale, lease or repair of a house. These submissions appear to have found favour with the Honourable Court and are likely to represent the position under Singapore law too.

For any further inquiries, please feel free to contact our team member set out on this page.


Disclaimer

Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.

The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.

Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.

CONTACTS

Partner
+65 6232 0438
Singapore,

Country

EXPERTISE

Share

Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of legal practices based in Asia.

Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local legal requirements. Services provided by a member firm are governed by the terms of engagement between the member firm and the client.

This website is solely intended to provide general information and does not provide any advice or create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on this website.

© 2024 Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. All rights reserved. Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP (UEN T08LL0005E) is registered in Singapore under the Limited Liability Partnerships Act (Chapter 163A) with limited liability.