KALIYAMMA A/P TAMIL SELVAM

ba-24ncvc-2434-10-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 19 November 2025 • BA-24NCvC-2434-10/2025 • 6 min read

Catchwords

Probate and administration — Estate administration — Application for appointment of interim administrator — Ex parte originating summons — Whether mere absence of grant of representation sufficient — Requirement of urgent necessity — No evidence of imminent risk to estate — Whether interim appointment justified — Rules of Court 2012, O 15 r 6A; O 92 r 4 — Application dismissed. Civil procedure — Ex parte application — Duty of full and frank disclosure — Non-disclosure of material facts — Failure to disclose existence of other beneficiaries — Effect of non-disclosure — Whether relief ought to be refused. Evidence — Affidavits — Sufficiency of affidavit evidence — Bare assertions without documentary support — Absence of death certificate, proof of relationship and land search — Whether affidavit discloses primary facts — Evidential weight undermined. Equity — Interim relief — Discretion of court — Exceptional remedy — Absence of urgency — Balance of justice — Whether court should exercise inherent powers — Judicial restraint. Practice and procedure — Probate — Interim relief not a substitute for ordinary probate process — Proper course to apply for letters of administration — Exceptional circumstances required.

Practice Areas

Probate & Administration Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Asmah binti Musa Delivered

Counsel (2)

P. Gunalan & Co Firm Gunalan Paranjoth Counsel Applicant

Parties (1)

Kaliyamma a/p Tamil Selvam Applicant

Case Significance

An ex parte application to appoint an interim estate administrator dismissed for want of urgent necessity or imminent risk to the estate and for breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure.

This High Court decision concerns an ex parte originating summons for the appointment of an interim administrator of a deceased person's estate. The deceased had died intestate, leaving assets that included immovable property in Mukim Sepang, Selangor. The applicant averred that she was the deceased's daughter and a beneficiary of the estate, and it was not disputed that, at the time of filing, no grant of representation — no letters of administration — had yet been obtained.

The Court addressed what an applicant must show before the court will make the exceptional order of appointing an interim administrator. The mere absence of a grant of representation is not, by itself, sufficient: the ordinary course is to apply for a grant through the proper probate process. An interim appointment under the court's powers, invoked here through Order 15 rule 6A and Order 92 rule 4 of the Rules of Court 2012, is reserved for cases of genuine urgent necessity — where there is evidence of an imminent risk to the estate that cannot await the normal process. Here there was no evidence of any such imminent risk to the estate assets. Compounding this, the application was made ex parte, which carries a strict duty of full and frank disclosure of all material facts; the Court found a failure to disclose material matters, a defect that independently undermines an ex parte application.

The Court held that an interim appointment was not justified on the material before it and dismissed the application, while making clear that nothing in its decision prevented the applicant from pursuing the proper probate process or from filing a fresh application supported by cogent evidence should genuine urgency later arise. The judgment is a useful illustration of the requirement of urgent necessity for the appointment of an interim administrator and of the duty of full and frank disclosure on any ex parte application.

What did the applicant seek?

The applicant, a daughter and beneficiary of a person who died intestate leaving property in Mukim Sepang, sought the appointment of an interim administrator of the estate by ex parte originating summons under Order 15 rule 6A and Order 92 rule 4, no grant of representation having yet been obtained.

Why was the application dismissed?

The Court held that the mere absence of a grant was not enough; an interim appointment requires evidence of urgent necessity or imminent risk to the estate, of which there was none, and the ex parte application had also failed in the duty of full and frank disclosure of material facts.

Statutes Cited

Rules of Court 2012

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (ba-24ncvc-2434-10-2025)