VIK v VIL: Estate Administration, Property Sale, and Beneficiary Rights

In VIK v VIL, the Family Justice Courts of Singapore addressed an application by the Administrator of the Testator's estate for authorization to sell Property 2 to cover outstanding administration fees and liabilities. The five defendants, family members and beneficiaries, were divided in their positions. The court, led by Tan Puay Boon JC, granted the application, finding that the sale was not barred by res judicata, the Administrator was acting within its powers under the Probate and Administration Act, and the sale of Property 2 was more appropriate than Property 1 based on the testator's will and codicil. The court dismissed the Mother's application for a stay pending resolution of another suit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application granted to sell Property 2 to raise funds for the administration of the Estate.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Court approves sale of Property 2 to cover estate liabilities, addressing disputes among beneficiaries and administrator's unpaid fees. Key issues: res judicata, administrator's role.

1.7 Decision Date

18 August 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
VIK	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted	Won	Sarjit Singh Gill of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Lim Chong Guang Charles of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Shakti Krishnaveni Sadashiv of Shook Lin & Bok LLP
VIL	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Marissa Zhao Yunan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Kee Lay Lian of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
VIM	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Marissa Zhao Yunan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Kee Lay Lian of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
VIN	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Marissa Zhao Yunan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP Kee Lay Lian of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
VIO	Defendant	Individual	Aligned with Plaintiff	Neutral	Chan Tai-Hui Jason of Allen & Gledhill LLP Oh Jialing Evangeline of Allen & Gledhill LLP
VIP	Defendant	Individual	Aligned with Plaintiff	Neutral	Edmund Kronenburg of Braddell Brothers LLP Anthony Yvette Loretta of Braddell Brothers LLP Tan Po Nin Jeslyn of Braddell Brothers LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Puay Boon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Sarjit Singh Gill	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Lim Chong Guang Charles	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Shakti Krishnaveni Sadashiv	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Marissa Zhao Yunan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Kee Lay Lian	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Chan Tai-Hui Jason	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Oh Jialing Evangeline	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Edmund Kronenburg	Braddell Brothers LLP
Anthony Yvette Loretta	Braddell Brothers LLP
Tan Po Nin Jeslyn	Braddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

The Testator passed away on 25 April 2008, leaving behind a will and codicil.
The Administrator was appointed to manage the Estate, which included multiple properties and shares in [PQR].
The Estate faced significant liabilities, including unpaid administration fees and a loan from one of the defendants.
The Administrator sought court approval to sell Property 2 to raise funds to cover the Estate's liabilities.
The defendants, beneficiaries of the Estate, had differing views on the proposed sale.
The Estate did not have sufficient cash on hand to meet the liabilities and expenses incurred.
The Administrator's attempts to obtain mortgages on the properties were unsuccessful.

5. Formal Citations

VIK v VIL and others, Originating Summons No 14 of 2018 and Summons No 300 of 2019, [2020] SGHCF 12
HC/OS 904/2013, , [2016] SGHC 31
HC/OS 725/2016, , [2017] SGHC 111

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-23	Will executed
2008-03-21	Codicil dated
2008-04-25	Testator passed away
2009-01-05	Grant of Probate obtained
2009-01-05	Schedule of Assets issued
2009-01-01	Residuary Properties transferred to the Sisters
2011-08-15	HC/OS 687/2011 filed
2012-03-02	Administrator appointed
2012-10-15	HC/S 883/2012 filed
2017-02-03	Letter from Administrator’s solicitors to the beneficiaries’ solicitors
2017-03-27	HC/S 426/2012 discontinued
2017-06-20	HC/S 883/2012 discontinued
2017-08-02	HC/SUM 3550/2017 filed
2017-08-18	Leave to amend granted
2018-01-01	HCF/S 2/2018 ongoing
2018-09-19	Plaintiff’s 1st Affidavit dated
2019-09-11	Affidavit of Service dated
2019-10-18	Administrator had around S$800,000 in unpaid administration fees
2019-11-04	SUM 300/2019 filed
2020-02-24	Plaintiff’s 2nd Affidavit dated
2020-02-26	Written submissions filed
2020-02-27	Hearing adjourned
2020-03-04	Hearing
2020-03-05	No order as to costs for OSP 14
2020-03-11	Clarification on costs for OSP 14
2020-08-19	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the question of the sale of Property 2 was not res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Issue estoppel
  - Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 2 SLR 12
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
Administrator's Capacity and Powers
- Outcome: The court held that the Administrator was acting as an administrator of the Estate rather than a trustee, and that the appropriate legal regime for the issue was the Probate and Administration Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 3 SLR(R) 516
  - [2019] SGCA 61
  - [2015] 5 SLR 792
Interpretation of Will and Codicil
- Outcome: The court found that the Administrator’s proposal to sell Property 2 ahead of Property 1 was consistent with Will and Codicil.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453

8. Remedies Sought

Authorization to sell Property 1
Authorization to sell Property 2

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Sale of Property
Administration of Estate

10. Practice Areas

Estate Administration
Trusts
Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 12	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of issue estoppel.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the factors to consider in determining abuse of process.
Lee Yoke San and another v Tsong Sai Sai Cecilia and another	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 516	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between an administrator and a trustee.
Ong Wui Teck (personal representative of the estate of Chew Chen Chin, deceased) v Ong Wui Swoon and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 61	Singapore	Cited for the point at which a personal representative ceases to be an executor and administrator.
Seah Teong Kang (co-executor of the will of Lee Koon, deceased) and another v Seah Yong Chwan (executor of the estate of Seah Eng Teow)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 792	Singapore	Cited for the nature of an 'assent' in the context of estate administration.
Re Bailey	Ch	Yes	[1951] Ch 407	England and Wales	The court’s function is not to rewrite the will or to seek to “improve upon or perfect testamentary dispositions
Re Sanford, Sanford v Sanford	Ch	Yes	[1901] 1 Ch 939	England and Wales	There is a presumption that effect should be given to every word

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Estate
Administrator
Property 1
Property 2
Will
Codicil
Estate Liabilities
Beneficiaries
Trustees Act
Probate and Administration Act
Res Judicata

15.2 Keywords

estate administration
property sale
beneficiary rights
probate
trusts
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	95
Wills and Probate	90
Administration of Assets	80
Will Interpretation	70
Property Law	50

16. Subjects

Probate
Estate Administration
Trusts
Property Law