1. ) BASKARAN A/L KRISHNA 2. ) CHARLES EDWARD A/L LAWRENCE SEBASTIAN 3. ) TEH SHENG WEI 4. ) ASCENTA LOGISTICS SDN BHD v THAI HAA LING

Case Significance

Illustrates the standing and pleading requirements for challenging a grant of letters of administration, the court striking out a suit alleging a suppressed will where the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, pleaded fraud without particulars, and were time-barred under section 29(1) of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955.

This High Court decision concerns an application to strike out a suit arising out of the estate of a deceased man, brought under Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court 2012. The plaintiffs — three individuals and a company, Ascenta Logistics Sdn Bhd — alleged that the deceased had left a will, said to have been prepared by a trustee company and witnessed by two of the plaintiffs, and that the defendant, the deceased's widow and the administrator of his estate under a letter of administration, had suppressed or destroyed that will in order to obtain the letter of administration and distribute the assets to herself. They sought declarations that the letter of administration was null and void, recognition of the alleged will, and an order compelling the sale of the deceased's shares in the plaintiff company. The defendant applied to strike out the action on the grounds that the plaintiffs lacked locus standi, had failed to plead particulars of fraud, that the claim was time-barred under section 29(1) of the Small Estates (Distribution) Act 1955, and that it was scandalous and an abuse of process. Applying the settled principle from Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd that striking out is confined to plain and obvious cases, the court nonetheless found this to be such a case. It held that the plaintiffs were strangers to the estate with no proper standing, that the core allegation of suppression or destruction of the will was pleaded without any particulars in breach of Order 18 rule 12, and that the suit was time-barred by more than seventeen months under the Act with no explanation offered. Distinguishing the authority the plaintiffs relied on, the court struck out the writ and statement of claim in their entirety and dismissed the action with costs of RM2,000. The judgment illustrates the pleading and standing requirements for challenging a grant of administration.