TEOH SAY HEAN v 1. ) WAKIL SAH KEPADA HARTA PUSAKA GOH BIAN SOON, SIMATI 2. ) VALUE ADDED RESOURCES SDN BHD

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's discretion under Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 to appoint a representative for the estate of a deceased who has no personal representative, and the court's caution in exercising it where the appointment is opposed and no grant of representation has been obtained.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam, delivered by Rozi binti Bainon JC, concerns an application under Aturan 15 kaedah 6A(4)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 (Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012) to have a person appointed to represent the estate of a deceased for the purposes of the proceedings. The plaintiff had commenced an action in which the estate of the deceased, and a company, were to be parties, but no grant of probate or letters of administration had been extracted for the estate, so there was no personal representative in place. The plaintiff therefore applied to have a legal representative appointed to answer for the estate; the deceased's widow opposed her own or the proposed appointment as the estate's representative.

Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) confers a discretion on the court to appoint a person to represent the estate of a deceased where the deceased had no personal representative, if the court thinks it expedient to do so to enable the action to proceed. The Court weighed whether it was appropriate to exercise that discretion in the plaintiff's favour, taking account of the widow's opposition, the absence of any grant of representation, and the interests of the estate in having its affairs properly administered rather than being drawn into litigation through an appointment made over the objection of those closest to the deceased.

The Court declined to exercise its discretion as the plaintiff sought. It dismissed the relevant prayer of the originating summons — the prayer at paragraph 1(a) seeking the appointment of a legal representative for the estate — and ordered the costs of the application to be borne by the plaintiff. The judgment is a useful illustration of the court's discretion under Order 15 rule 6A(4)(a) of the Rules of Court 2012 to appoint a representative for the estate of a deceased who has no personal representative, and of the court's caution in exercising that discretion where the appointment is opposed and no grant of representation has been obtained.