May 15, 2025
Publications
Executor Removed Due to Conflict of Interests and Lack of Due Diligence and Speed
In WPA v WPB & Ors [2025] SGHCF 24 (“GD”), the General Division of the High Court (Family Division) allowed the Plaintiff’s claim, to remove the 2nd Defendant as an executor of the estate (estimated between A$128m and A$150m) of their late mother (“Y”), due to inter alia conflicts of interest and for not performing his duties as an executor with due diligence and speed.
The Plaintiff was also substituted in as an administrator, despite the strenuous objections of most of the Defendants.
Characterist LLC’s Dominic Chan and Noel Oehlers successfully acted for the Plaintiff in this case.
Facts and Issues
The Plaintiff commenced the Suit in 2021, to remove the 1st and 2nd Defendants as the executrix and executor, respectively, of Y’s estate.
Section 32 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed) provides that any probate may be revoked or amended for any sufficient cause. This requires the court to consider whether there has been an undue or improper administration of the estate in total disregard of the interests of the beneficiaries (Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi v Damayanti Kantilal Doshi (executrix of the estate of Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi, deceased) and another [2000] 3 SLR(R) 290 at [12]). Where, for instance, the executors are found to be tardy in distributing the assets of the estate or acting in conflict with the beneficiaries’ interests, the court may revoke a probate (UVH and another v UVJ and others [2020] 3 SLR 1329 at [73]-[74]). See [6] of the GD.
Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be removed depended on secondary questions — whether they had acted in conflict of interests or, alternatively, they had been dilatory in their duties as executors to the extent that warrant their removal (see [7] of the GD).
It was one of the grounds of the Plaintiff’s claim that the 2nd Defendant was in a position of conflict of interests between his duties as an executor of Y’s estate and the negotiation and distributing of assets from the estate to himself (and the 3rd Defendant). The second ground of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the executors had not performed their duties with due diligence and speed (see [21] of GD).
Court’s Findings
The Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had proven both claims (see [22] of GD).
Amongst other findings:
Commentary
It is very important for an executor of an estate: (1) not to place himself or herself in a position of conflict of interests; and (2) to perform his or her duties with due diligence and speed.
Not abiding by such duties are potential grounds for possibly being removed and/or replaced by others.
In addition, even if an executor is removed, the Court would still have to go through the important exercise (which can give rise to highly contentious allegations between the parties) of determining who is suitable (or unsuitable) to be the replacement, after giving appropriate weight to and balancing all relevant factors.
The Plaintiff was also substituted in as an administrator, despite the strenuous objections of most of the Defendants.
Characterist LLC’s Dominic Chan and Noel Oehlers successfully acted for the Plaintiff in this case.
Facts and Issues
The Plaintiff commenced the Suit in 2021, to remove the 1st and 2nd Defendants as the executrix and executor, respectively, of Y’s estate.
Section 32 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed) provides that any probate may be revoked or amended for any sufficient cause. This requires the court to consider whether there has been an undue or improper administration of the estate in total disregard of the interests of the beneficiaries (Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi v Damayanti Kantilal Doshi (executrix of the estate of Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi, deceased) and another [2000] 3 SLR(R) 290 at [12]). Where, for instance, the executors are found to be tardy in distributing the assets of the estate or acting in conflict with the beneficiaries’ interests, the court may revoke a probate (UVH and another v UVJ and others [2020] 3 SLR 1329 at [73]-[74]). See [6] of the GD.
Whether the 1st and 2nd Defendants should be removed depended on secondary questions — whether they had acted in conflict of interests or, alternatively, they had been dilatory in their duties as executors to the extent that warrant their removal (see [7] of the GD).
It was one of the grounds of the Plaintiff’s claim that the 2nd Defendant was in a position of conflict of interests between his duties as an executor of Y’s estate and the negotiation and distributing of assets from the estate to himself (and the 3rd Defendant). The second ground of the Plaintiff’s claim was that the executors had not performed their duties with due diligence and speed (see [21] of GD).
Court’s Findings
The Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had proven both claims (see [22] of GD).
Amongst other findings:
- It was precisely that the 2nd Defendant was representing himself, seeking payments out of the estate that affected his position as an executor. The act created a conflict of interests whether or not the Australian administrator of Y’s estate may have approved the payments (see [20] of the GD);
- There was no excuse in not administering the estate diligently (see [25] of the GD);
- The Court granted the Plaintiff Letters of Administration with Will Annexed in respect of the estate of Y, in substitution of the 2nd Defendant (see [28] of the GD) – this was despite strenuous objections by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th Defendants who alleged that the Plaintiff was not suitable to be the administrator (see [27] of the GD);
- The Court declined to substitute the 3rd and 4th Defendants in as administrators, for various reasons (see [26] of the GD).
Commentary
It is very important for an executor of an estate: (1) not to place himself or herself in a position of conflict of interests; and (2) to perform his or her duties with due diligence and speed.
Not abiding by such duties are potential grounds for possibly being removed and/or replaced by others.
In addition, even if an executor is removed, the Court would still have to go through the important exercise (which can give rise to highly contentious allegations between the parties) of determining who is suitable (or unsuitable) to be the replacement, after giving appropriate weight to and balancing all relevant factors.
