Oh Chun Moy v Oh Bee Bee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 September 2011
• Date: 30 September 2011
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 183 of 2011
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Oh Chun Moy and others

Plaintiff

and

Oh Bee Bee

Defendant

[2011] SGHC 220

Lai Siu Chiu J

Originating Summons No 183 of 2011

High Court

Probate and Administration—Administration of assets

The plaintiffs, in their position as trustees of the estate of Oh Chin Seong (‘the Estate’), filed Originating Summons No 183 of 2011 (‘the OS’) against the defendant praying for orders under s 41 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) and s 67 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed). The orders sought were as follows: that the defendant furnish proper particulars and accounts of the assets and liabilities of the Estate; an enquiry to be held and an account of the funeral and testamentary expenses of Oh Chin Seong (‘the Deceased’) be taken; an inquiry be held to determine what sums had been expended or liabilities incurred by the plaintiffs and the defendant or some or one of them in respect of which they or some or one of them were entitled to be indemnified out of the whole or any part and what parts of the Estate; and that upon the inquiries being held, the defendant to take immediate steps to sign all cheques with the plaintiffs to complete the administration of the Estate and distribute the Estate to all six beneficiaries within one month from the order.

The plaintiffs were the sisters of the defendant. The plaintiffs and the defendant were administrators, and beneficiaries, of the Estate of the Deceased who was their late father. The parties' two brothers, Oh Kian Chun (‘OKC’) and Oh Kian Tong (‘OKT’) were also beneficiaries of the Estate. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant solely controlled the accounts of the Estate. In addition, the plaintiffs claimed that the defendant had persistently failed to provide proper accounts of the Estate despite having been accorded numerous opportunities to do so prior to the filing of the OS. The defendant, on the other hand, denied the plaintiffs' allegations and maintained that proper accounts of the Estate had been provided. In addition to disputes pertaining to the accounts of the Estate, the parties were not in agreement in respect of which expenses, incurred by the plaintiffs and defendant, were claimable from the Estate.

Held, granting the application:

(1) The defendant had not produced to the plaintiffs' satisfaction the accounts of the Estate: at [23].

(2) The plaintiffs and defendant were entitled to reimbursement for funeral/probate expenses, as well as expenses relating to the sale of the deceased's property situated at Block 672, Woodlands Drive 71 #08-77, Singapore 730672 (‘the flat’): at [3].

(3) Provided the defendant was able to furnish supporting documents, she was entitled to reimbursement of any commission (limited to 2%) that she had paid for the sale of the flat excluding any service fee claimed by the defendant's husband: at [3].

(4) The shares of the Estate due to OKC and OKT were not to be distributed for six months from the date of the order pending any claim by the defendant to their shares. However, if the defendant failed to make such claim by 1 December 2011, the plaintiffs were at liberty to release the shares to OKC and OKT: at [4].

(5) The operative words in s 41S (1) (a) of the Trustees Act were ‘reasonable expenses properly incurred’ in relation to a trustee being reimbursed expenses incurred on behalf of a trust. The burden was on the defendant to prove: (a)the expenses she incurred were testamentary in nature and/or incurred on behalf of the Deceased and (b)they were reasonably incurred. The defendant had failed to discharge this burden: at [30] and [31].

Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 67 (consd)

Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) s 41S (1) (a) (consd) ;ss 41, 41S

Albert Teo (PKWA Law Practice LLC) for the plaintiffs

Eddie Lee (CP Lee & Co) for the defendant.

Lai Siu Chiu J

1 On 7 March 2011, Oh Chun Moy, Oh Ah Yen and Oh Kim Kee (‘the first, second and third plaintiffs’ respectively) in their position as trustees of the estate of Oh Chin Seong (‘the Estate’) filed Originating Summons No 183 of 2011 (‘the OS’) against Oh Bee Bee (‘the defendant’) praying, inter alia, for the following orders under s 41 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) and s 67 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed):

(a) that the defendant furnish proper particulars and accounts of the assets and liabilities of the Estate;

(b) an inquiry be held and an account of the funeral and testamentary expenses of Oh Chin Seong (‘the Deceased’) be taken;

(c) an inquiry be held to determine what sums have been expended or liabilities incurred by the plaintiffs and the defendant or some or one of them in respect of which they or some or one of them are entitled to be indemnified out of the whole or any part and what parts of the Estate; and

(d) that upon the inquiries being held, the defendant take immediate steps to sign all cheques with the plaintiffs to complete the administration of the Estate and distribute the Estate to all six beneficiaries within one (1) month from this order.

2 Upon hearing the parties, I granted orders in terms of prayers (a), (b), (c) and (d) and awarded costs of $800 to the plaintiffs excluding disbursements which would be paid on a reimbursement basis by the defendant.

3 In regard to prayer (c), I further ordered the plaintiffs as trustees of the Estate to reimburse the defendant the sums of $1,763.91 and $1,004 for funeral/probate expenses and expenses relating to the sale of the property situated at Block 672, Woodlands Drive 71 #08-77, Singapore 730672 (‘the flat’). In addition and provided the defendant was able to furnish supporting documents by way of invoices and/or receipts, the defendant was entitled to be reimbursed whatever commission (limited to 2%) that she had paid for the sale of the property excluding any service fee claimed by the defendant's husband (who was not entitled to the same). Other than the defendant, the second and third plaintiffs were entitled to be reimbursed $1,763.91 each while the first plaintiff was entitled to be reimbursed $1,853.91 for expenses similarly incurred by them.

4 Under prayer (d), I ordered that only the plaintiffs and the defendant were entitled to be paid their shares from the Estate. The shares due to Oh...