WVD v WUR: Application for Extension of Time to File Appeal Regarding Breach of Fiduciary Duties

WVD, WVE, and WVF applied for an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the District Judge in WUR and others v WVD and others. The Family Division of the High Court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the application on 3 February 2025, finding the delay unjustified, the intended appeal without merit, and potential prejudice to the respondents. The underlying issue concerns the first applicant's alleged breach of fiduciary duties as executor and trustee of the Deceased's estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court (Family Division)

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for extension of time to appeal a decision regarding breach of fiduciary duties as executor. The court dismissed the application, citing delay, lack of merit, and potential prejudice.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WVDApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
WVEApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
WVFApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
WURRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUSRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUTRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUURespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUVRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUWRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUXRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUYRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WUZRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WVARespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WVBRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon
WVCRespondentIndividualApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramesh s/o VarathappanLegal Minds Practice LLC
Dew WongDew Chambers

4. Facts

  1. The first applicant is the sole executor and trustee of his late mother’s estate.
  2. The second and third applicants are his children and the Deceased’s grandchildren.
  3. The first to fourth respondents are the Deceased’s sons.
  4. The fifth to twelfth respondents are the Deceased’s grandchildren.
  5. All the parties are beneficiaries under the Deceased’s will.
  6. The respondents commenced a suit seeking an account of the Deceased’s estate assets.
  7. The respondents argued that the first applicant breached his fiduciary duties.
  8. The District Judge found that the first applicant had failed in his fiduciary duties.
  9. The District Judge directed the first applicant to produce the accounts of the Deceased’s estate on a wilful default basis to the respondents.
  10. The applicants missed the deadline to file their appeal by 47 days.

5. Formal Citations

  1. WUR and others v WVD and others, , [2024] SGFC 13
  2. WVD and others v WUR and others, Originating Summons (Probate) No 6 of 2024, [2025] SGHCF 9

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Demise of the Deceased
Court delivered grounds of decision finding breach of fiduciary duties
Deadline to file appeal
First applicant applied for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal to the Family Justice Courts
DJ ruled that the first applicant filed his application to the incorrect court
First applicant filed application under the General Division of the High Court
Court notified first applicant that application needed to be filed under the Family Division of the High Court
First applicant submitted a notice of discontinuance/withdrawal of HC/OA 406/2024
First applicant re-filed the originating summons pursuant to r 15(2) of the Family Justice Rules 2014
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to File Appeal
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the breach of fiduciary duty itself, as the application was for an extension of time to appeal the lower court's decision on this issue.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of time to file an appeal

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Probate
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
WUR and others v WVD and othersDistrict CourtYes[2024] SGFC 13SingaporeCited as the decision being appealed.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the four factors to be considered when determining whether an extension of time should be granted to a party to file a notice of appeal out of time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rule 825(b) of the Family Justice Rules 2014
r 15(2) of the Family Justice Rules 2014

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act 1934Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Extension of time
  • Notice of appeal
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Executor
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiaries
  • Deceased's estate
  • Wilful default
  • Prejudice

15.2 Keywords

  • extension of time
  • appeal
  • fiduciary duty
  • probate
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Wills and Probate85
Estate Administration75
Family Law70
Fiduciary Duties60
Civil Litigation40
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Family Law
  • Probate