1. ) LIM HENG CHAI 2. ) LIM KIM POH 3. ) LIM AI HAN v LIM TIAN CHOY
Catchwords
Conclusion [41] For the reasons set out above, this Court finds that there exists sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 34 of the Probate & Administration Act 1959 (Revised 1972) for the removal of the Defendant as administrator of the Deceased’s estate. [42] This Court has applied the objective test established in Re Khoo Boo Gong, Deceased Khoo Teng Seong v. Teoh Chooi Ghim & Ors (supra), as adopted in Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Ors v. Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi & Ors [1998] 2 MLRA 177 and Tan Khay Seng (supra), and has concluded that the removal of the Defendant is necessary for the due and proper administration of the estate and is in the interests of the beneficiaries. [43] This Court has been particularly mindful throughout these proceedings of its duty to protect the interests of the Defendant, who appeared without legal representation. This Court is satisfied that the Defendant was afforded a full and fair hearing, that all his concerns were carefully considered, and that his removal as administrator will not prejudice his substantive rights as a beneficiary. The Defendant did not attend the oral submissions although he had full knowledge. The Defendant did not file any written submissions. This Court relied on the evidence adduced at trial, his pleaded position and the relevant authorities. [44] This Court is further satisfied that the appointment of the three Plaintiffs as administrators in place of the current administrators will enable the estate to move forward to proper distribution after 46 years of administration.
Practice Areas
Conclusion 41 For the reasons set out above, this Court finds that there exists sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 34 of the Probate & Administration Act 1959 (Revised 1972) for the removal of the Defendant as administrator of the Deceased’s estate. 42 This Court has applied the objective test established in Re Khoo Boo Gong, Deceased Khoo Teng Seong v. Teoh Chooi Ghim & Ors (supra), as adopted in Damayanti Kantilal Doshi & Ors v. Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi & Ors 1998 2 MLRA 177 and Tan Khay Seng (supra), and has concluded that the removal of the Defendant is necessary for the due and proper administration of the estate and is in the interests of the beneficiaries. 43 This Court has been particularly mindful throughout these proceedings of its duty to protect the interests of the Defendant, who appeared without legal representation. This Court is satisfied that the Defendant was afforded a full and fair hearing, that all his concerns were carefully considered, and that his removal as administrator will not prejudice his substantive rights as a beneficiary. The Defendant did not attend the oral submissions although he had full knowledge. The Defendant did not file any written submissions. This Court relied on the evidence adduced at trial, his pleaded position and the relevant authorities. 44 This Court is further satisfied that the appointment of the three Plaintiffs as administrators in place of the current administrators will enable the estate to move forward to proper distribution after 46 years of administration.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) LIM HENG CHAI 2. ) LIM KIM POH 3. ) LIM AI HAN v LIM TIAN CHOY is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 14, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-358-06-2024). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
What was the outcome of 1. ) LIM HENG CHAI 2. ) LIM KIM POH 3. ) LIM AI HAN v LIM TIAN CHOY?
1. ) LIM HENG CHAI 2. ) LIM KIM POH 3. ) LIM AI HAN v LIM TIAN CHOY is a High Court decision dated October 14, 2025. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.