WKR v WKQ: Contested Resealing of Vanuatu Grant & Domicile Dispute

In WKR v WKQ, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard appeals AD 107 and AD 108 concerning the administration of the estate of a deceased man. The appellant, WKR (the Father), disputed the respondent, WKQ's (the Wife) claim to be the deceased's wife and her application to reseal a Vanuatu Grant of Letters of Administration in Singapore. The court allowed both appeals, directing the Wife to commence contentious probate proceedings to determine the Deceased's domicile and the lawfulness of the Vanuatu Grant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court allows appeal, directing contentious probate proceedings to determine domicile and validity of Vanuatu Grant in estate dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

26 October 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
WKR	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed of A Mohamed Hashim Sofia Bakhash of A Mohamed Hashim
WKQ	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Kulvinder Kaur of I.R.B Law LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Debbie Ong Siew Ling	Judge of the Appellate Division	Yes
Valerie Thean	Judge of the General Division	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed	A Mohamed Hashim
Sofia Bakhash	A Mohamed Hashim
Kulvinder Kaur	I.R.B Law LLP

4. Facts

The Deceased died intestate in Spain on 10 January 2021.
The Father and the Wife disputed the Wife's status as the Deceased's lawful wife.
The Wife obtained a grant of letters of administration in Vanuatu.
The Father filed a caveat objecting to the resealing of the Vanuatu Grant in Singapore.
The Father alleged that the Deceased was domiciled in the UAE, not Vanuatu.
The Father alleged that the Wife procured the Vanuatu Grant by fraud.
The Wife did not produce her original marriage certificate that had been issued in Spain.

5. Formal Citations

WKR v WKQ and another appeal, , [2023] SGHC(A) 35

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2021-01-10	Deceased died intestate in Málaga, Spain.
2021-06-01	Father applied for Deceased’s Inheritance Certificate in the UAE.
2021-09-21	Wife applied to administer the estate of the Deceased in Vanuatu.
2021-09-27	UAE Court issued decree.
2021-09-30	Wife filed an appeal against the UAE Court Decree.
2021-11-10	Wife obtained a grant of letters of administration in Vanuatu.
2022-02-22	Wife filed an originating summons in Singapore for the Vanuatu Grant to be resealed.
2022-02-07	Wife's appeal against the UAE Court Decree was dismissed.
2022-03-29	Father filed a caveat in Singapore objecting to Wife’s resealing application.
2022-04-27	Father filed a summons for directions seeking a stay of Wife's resealing application.
2022-05-05	Father filed Civil Case in the Vanuatu Supreme Court to quash the Vanuatu Grant.
2022-08-11	Vanuatu Supreme Court struck out the Father’s application.
2022-11-24	Judge dismissed Father’s stay application and granted Wife’s resealing application.
2022-12-09	Father filed AD 107 against the Judge’s decision in CAVP 11.
2022-12-12	Father filed AD 108 against the Judge’s decision in P 112.
2023-08-21	Appeals allowed.
2023-10-27	Grounds of Decision issued.

7. Legal Issues

Domicile of the Deceased
- Outcome: The court found that the Judge ought not to have made a summary determination as to the Deceased’s domicile and directed the Wife to file a writ to prove her entitlement to the resealing of the Vanuatu Grant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Abandonment of domicile of choice
  - Acquisition of domicile of choice
  - Intention of permanent residence
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 765
Lawfulness of the Vanuatu Grant
- Outcome: The court found that the Judge ought not to have summarily dismissed the Father’s objections on the lawfulness of the Vanuatu Grant and directed the Wife to file a writ to prove her entitlement to the resealing of the Vanuatu Grant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Fraud in obtaining the grant
  - False declaration of marriage
  - Omission of beneficiaries
- Related Cases:
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 515
  - [2010] 1 SLR 1129
  - [2021] 1 SLR 1248
Resealing of Foreign Grant
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and set aside the Judge's order for resealing, directing further proceedings.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Stay of Resealing Application
Removal of Caveat
Resealing of Vanuatu Grant

9. Cause of Actions

Resealing of Foreign Grant
Caveat against Grant of Probate

10. Practice Areas

Estate Administration
Probate Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Jennison v Jennison and another	High Court	Yes	[2023] Ch 225	England and Wales	Cited regarding the discretionary nature of granting a resealing application.
Re Syed Hassan bin Abdullah Aljofri Deceased; The Estate & Trust Agencies (1927) Ltd v Syed Hamid Bin Hassan Aljofri & 2 Ors	High Court	Yes	[1949] MLJ 198	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the Court has discretion to postpone or refuse resealing in special circumstances.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (interim judicial managers appointed)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 434	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the threshold for granting summary judgment is a high one.
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 325	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it will not be sufficient for the caveator to provide a mere assertion in an affidavit of a given situation as the basis of his objection.
Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 1276	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it will not be sufficient for the caveator to provide a mere assertion in an affidavit of a given situation as the basis of his objection.
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian	High Court	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 765	Singapore	Cited for principles in determining the domicile of a person.
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 515	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the local court will only refrain from enforcing a foreign judgment if it is shown that the plaintiff procured it by fraud.
Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 1129	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the local court will only refrain from enforcing a foreign judgment if it is shown that the plaintiff procured it by fraud.
Ong Han Nam v Borneo Ventures Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1248	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic fraud in the context of enforcing foreign judgments.
Ee Hoong Liang v Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC(A) 40	Singapore	Cited regarding intrinsic or extrinsic fraud.
Godard v Gray	Court of Queen's Bench	Yes	(1870) LR 6 QB 139	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a foreign judgment is conclusive as to any matter thereby adjudicated upon and cannot be impeached for any error, whether of fact or of law.
Grant v Easton	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1883) 13 QBD 302	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an application for summary judgment may be made on the ground that the defendant has no defence to the claim.
Re Trufort	High Court of Justice	Yes	(1887) 36 Ch D 600	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the foreign court’s determination will often be conclusive, notwithstanding that it has proceeded upon any misapprehension of the law, or that not all of the facts were brought before the foreign court.
In the Matter of an Application by WKQ and another matter	High Court (Family Division)	Yes	[2023] SGHCF 12	Singapore	The decision below being appealed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 208(1)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(1)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(3)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(5)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(7)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(11)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(13)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(16)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 239(17)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 240
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 242(b)
Family Justice Rules 2014, r 242(c)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act 1934	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act 1934	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Resealing
Vanuatu Grant
Domicile
Caveat
Probate
Letters of Administration
Fraud
Intestacy

15.2 Keywords

Probate
Administration
Domicile
Resealing
Caveat
Vanuatu
Foreign Grant

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	85
Foreign domicile grants	75
Wills and Probate	70
Resealing	65
Foreign Law	50
Civil Procedure	40
Property Law	30

16. Subjects

Probate and Administration
Domicile
Resealing of Foreign Grant
Caveat