Adp v Adt

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2014
• Date: 30 May 2014
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 212 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

ADP and others

Plaintiff

and

ADT and others

Defendant

[2014] SGHC 107

Choo Han Teck J

Originating Summons No 212 of 2014

High Court

Civil Procedure—Rules of court—Sealing order—Whether sealing order should be made when materials from sealed files used in proceedings

Succession and Wills—Determination of questions, etc,without administration—Whether court should determine question of whether executors should pay beneficiary when mental capacity in doubt

This was an application by the plaintiffs, the executors and trustees of the estate of a wealthy man, to seek directions from the court as to how they should deal with an interim distribution to the beneficiaries.

The three defendants, sisters, were among the beneficiaries to the estate. In 2011, the second and third defendants commenced proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177 A, 2010 Rev Ed) for a declaration that the first defendant was unable, by reason of her mental incapacity, to make decisions in respect of her own affairs.

On 11 December 2012, the district judge granted the second and third defendants' application and, further, appointed the second and third defendants as deputies of the first defendant. The first defendant appealed to the High Court and on 1 October 2013, Lai Siu Chiu J allowed her appeal and set aside the district judge's orders. The second and third defendants applied for, and were granted, leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. All the files relating to each stage of proceedings had been sealed, on application of the parties.

In the meantime, on 15 November 2012, the executors resolved to make an interim distribution of about £32 m to the beneficiaries. As the proceedings concerning the first defendant's mental capacity was still underway, the executors decided to withhold her share. However, the first defendant had maintained throughout that she ought to be paid her share. The second and third defendants, however, insisted that the executors should not be releasing moneys to the first defendant.

The executors therefore brought this application under s 56 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) and O 80 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) for directions as to whether and how the interim distribution of the first defendant's share should be made. Also, the executors and the defendants alike sought that the files of this proceeding be sealed.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) The decision whether to pay the first defendant her share lay with the executors. They had to decide whether it would be reasonable to pay, as the first defendant had requested, or to wait, as the second and third defendants had requested. A reasonable decision so reached would not endanger the executor to a suit for negligence: at [9] .

(2) The request by counsel to have the files sealed was granted only out of respect for the decisions by the judges in the previous proceedings to have those files sealed. This was because material from those sealed files had been extracted and used in this application. Sealing a court file on account of...