VGI v VGJ: Security for Costs in Probate Proceedings under Family Justice Rules

In Registrar’s Appeal No 53 of 2019, the High Court (Family Division) heard an appeal by VGI against VGJ regarding security for costs in probate proceedings. VGI, the plaintiff and brother of the deceased, lodged a caveat against a grant of probate. VGJ, the defendant and brother of the deceased’s late wife, sought a grant of probate based on a will naming him as executor. The court, presided over by Debbie Ong J, dismissed the appeal, finding that VGI was in the position of the plaintiff for the purpose of security for costs under the Family Justice Rules.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding security for costs in probate proceedings. The court determined the caveator was in the position of the plaintiff, dismissing the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
VGIAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
VGJRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Debbie OngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Ti LikChia Ngee Thuang & Co
Phang Fui Fern Eve LynArchilex Law Corporation
Tomoka HasegawaVanilla Law LLC
Anand GeorgeBR Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff lodged a caveat against any grant of probate in respect of a deceased person’s estate.
  2. The Plaintiff claimed to be the deceased’s brother.
  3. The Defendant sought a grant of probate based on a will which named him as the executor.
  4. The Defendant is the brother of the deceased’s late wife.
  5. The Plaintiff issued a writ seeking a declaration that the will is invalid and that the deceased had died intestate.
  6. The Plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction.

5. Formal Citations

    6. Timeline

    DateEvent
    FC/S 1/2018 filed
    Registrar’s Appeal No 53 of 2019 filed
    Judgment delivered

    7. Legal Issues

    1. Security for Costs
      • Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiff was in the position of the plaintiff commencing the contentious proceedings for the purposes of r 459 of the FJR.
      • Category: Procedural

    8. Remedies Sought

    1. Declaration that the will is invalid
    2. Declaration that the deceased died intestate

    9. Cause of Actions

    • No cause of actions

    10. Practice Areas

    • Probate Litigation
    • Family Litigation

    11. Industries

    • No industries specified

    12. Cited Cases

    Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
    In re Emery, DeceasedN/AYes[1923] P 184England and WalesCited regarding the effect of a caveat as a notice to the Registrar rather than an act to commence proceedings.
    Rose v Epstein and anotherN/AYes[1974] 1 WLR 1565England and WalesCited regarding the effect of a caveat as a notice to the Registrar rather than an act to commence proceedings.

    13. Applicable Rules

    Rule Name
    No applicable rules

    14. Applicable Statutes

    Statute NameJurisdiction
    Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) r 459Singapore

    15. Key Terms and Keywords

    15.1 Key Terms

    • Caveat
    • Grant of Probate
    • Security for Costs
    • Contentious Probate Proceedings
    • Family Justice Rules

    15.2 Keywords

    • Probate
    • Caveat
    • Security for Costs
    • Family Justice Rules
    • Singapore

    17. Areas of Law

    Area NameRelevance Score
    Wills and Probate90
    Costs80
    Civil Practice75
    Succession Law70
    Jurisdiction60
    Evidence Law50

    16. Subjects

    • Civil Procedure
    • Probate
    • Family Law
    • Costs