LAW WAI HAY v. LAW PO CHONG PRISCILLA, the administratrix of the estate of CHEUNG WAI FUN, Deceased

HCMP 1494/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 1494 OF 2019

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

A. INTRODUCTION

1.  This is the plaintiff’s application for removal of the defendant as the administratrix of the estate of the Deceased (“Estate”), revocation of the letters of administration of the Estate granted to the defendant, appointment of the plaintiff as the administrator of the Estate with the grant of a fresh letters of administration, and consequential orders including the production of a proper estate account by the defendant.

B.     BACKGROUND

2.  The Deceased is the mother of the plaintiff and the defendant.  She was found dead in her home on 1 November 2011. The Deceased left no Will.  Her husband (ie father of the plaintiff and the defendant) passed away before her intestate on 27 February 1997.

3.  The beneficiaries of the Estate are the plaintiff and the defendant.

4.  On the defendant’s own case, she is well educated.  She has obtained Bachelor and Master degrees in finance and law.  She worked as a non-civil servant contract staff in the Hong Kong Government from 2011 till January 2019.  She headed an investment promotion team and was responsible for attracting multinational and PRC companies to invest and set up office in Hong Kong.

5.  Shortly after the death of the Deceased, the plaintiff applied for the letters of administration of the Estate.  The application was withdrawn by agreement of the plaintiff and the defendant, and followed by the defendant’s application for the purpose of saving time and costs.

6.  Letters of administration (“L/A”) for the Estate was granted to the defendant on 18 September 2012.

7.  According to the Schedules of Assets and Liabilities annexed to the L/A, the Estate has the following assets:

(1)  Deposit at Hang Seng Bank in the sum of $631,679.95;

(2)  Securities account at Hang Seng Bank with 2,854 shares of HSBC Holdings, and 100,000 HKSAR ibond due 28 July 2014;

(3)  A property at La Cite Noble, Tseung Kwan O (“Tseung Kwan O Property”); and

(4)  Deposit at another Hang Seng Bank account in the sum of $320,124.85.

8.  The defendant failed to properly administer the Estate, and produced no estate account even after “the executor’s year”.  On 31 December 2013, the plaintiff issued an Originating Summons in HCMP 3477/2013 (the “2013 Action”) against the defendant requiring her to render an estate account, and to complete the administration of the Estate.

9.  In defence to the 2013 Action, the defendant suddenly challenged the plaintiff’s status and alleged for the first time that the plaintiff was not the natural and lawful son of the Deceased.  Such challenge failed before the Court of First Instance and on appeal.

10.  In the 2013 Action, B Chu J rejected the defendant’s allegation and on 11 April 2014 granted the reliefs sought by the plaintiff (the “2014 Order”).  B Chu J held that:

“5. The main objection by [the defendant] to [the plaintiff]’s application was [the plaintiff]’s status. …

6. … it would appear that any allegations regarding [the plaintiff]’s status was not in fact raised by [the defendant] until after she had, by [the plaintiff]’s agreement, applied for and obtained letters of administration for the Estate, which were granted on 17 October 2012 (sic). As stated by [the defendant] in her own affirmation for application for the letters of administration filed in the Probate Registry, [the plaintiff] is the lawful and natural son of Madam Cheung, and [the defendant] herself is the lawful and natural daughter, and the two of them are the only children/persons entitled to share in the Estate.

…

11. There had been no sufficient supporting evidence produced by [the defendant] that she, or indeed any one, had ever challenged or disputed [the plaintiff] being the son of Mr Lo and Madam Cheung, prior to the death of Madam Cheung.

12. At the hearing, I was satisfied that there was sufficient evidence that [the plaintiff] was/is the son of Mr Lo and Madam Cheung. As Mr Lo predeceased Madam Lo (sic), and Madam Lo (sic) died intestate, leaving only [the plaintiff] and [the defendant] as her surviving children, [the plaintiff] would be one of the two beneficiaries of the Estate.

13. For the reasons set out above, and in the circumstances, I was satisfied that [the plaintiff] was entitled to the orders sought by him.” (emphasis added)

11.  Before the learned Judge made the 2014 Order, she had considered the defendant’s views on the time for the production of estate account and completion of the administration of the Estate:

“14. [The defendant] had requested for 28 days, instead of 14 days, to prepare the accounts, which I granted. She had no objection to the administration of the Estate being completed 42 days after the submission of the accounts, and I so ordered.”

12.  Significantly, under the 2014 Order, the defendant should render the estate account within 28 days (ie by early May 2014) and to complete the administration within 42 days (ie by about late May 2014).

13.  The defendant then lodged an appeal against the 2014 Order, which was dismissed by the Court of Appeal (“CA”), with order against the defendant to pay the plaintiff’s costs personally (not out of the Estate).

(1)  The defendant raised 6 grounds of appeal which were summarised at paragraph 9 of the CA’s Reasons for Judgment in CACV 91/2014 dated 29 October 2015, viz, the alleged failure to give an adjournment to the defendant to adduce evidence to challenge the GZ notarial certificate[1]; failure to consider “the suspicious circumstances” under which the GZ notarial certificate was obtained; and failure to adequately consider the fact that the plaintiff had taken various documents, therefore it was impossible for the defendant to comply with the order, in particular the order to render an estate account.

(2)  The defendant also made application to adduce fresh evidence which the CA had considered de bene esse.

(3)  As regard the defendant’s conduct in the appeal, the CA had the following observations:

“14.4 … Her affirmation has only sought to put a suspicious slant on statements or events which are otherwise innocuous…” (emphasis added)

“15. …Ground 6 is clearly an after-thought, or a delaying tactic, neither of which this court should entertain.” (emphasis added)

14.  The defendant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”), but failed both before the CA and before the CFA by order under Rule 7 dated 9 February 2017.

15.  No stay of execution pending appeal was applied for by the defendant.  Yet, as a result of these unmeritorious appeal and applications for leave to appeal by the defendant, the defendant delayed the production of Estate account for about 3 more years.  Worse still, the delay did not stop there.

16.  After chaser by the plaintiff’s then solicitors, Messrs Lim & Lok (“Lim & Lok”), the defendant eventually sent to the plaintiff a one-page draft Estate account enclosed under a letter dated 31 March 2017 on a without prejudice basis.  No supporting documents were produced.

17.  By a letter dated 17 May 2017, Lim & Lok requested, inter alia, for information mentioned in the Estate account.

18.  By a letter dated 6 July 2017, the defendant posted to Lim & Lok a 2-page revised Estate account.  Again, no supporting documents were provided.  In this revised Estate account, which the defendant described as the completed Estate account, the defendant included an item of “Administratrix’ remuneration” in the sum of $50,570.45.  This “remuneration” was charged to the Estate unilaterally by the defendant without consent or prior notice of any one.

19.  Further, the defendant also stated that she would make the distribution to the plaintiff on the condition that the plaintiff signed the “Acknowledgment and Acceptance clause” under which the plaintiff had to accept the Estate account produced by the defendant as accurate and, significantly, the plaintiff was to hold the defendant indemnified against any action that may be made against her by reason of her administration of the Estate and distribution to the plaintiff.

20.  By a letter dated 4 August 2017, Lim & Lok provided comments on the Estate account prepared by the defendant and requested for the grounds and details relating to the Administratrix’ remuneration. One of the comments relates to the Deceased’s Cartier watch taken by the defendant.

21.  In the defendant’s reply letter dated 18 August 2017, the defendant attempted, for the first time, to hold the plaintiff liable for the alleged missing watch of the father and some money. She alleged, among other matters, that the plaintiff was the first person who broke into the Deceased’s house on the day when the Deceased was found dead, and there were money and father’s IWC watch that went missing.  She would either deduct $15,000 from the plaintiff’s share of distribution from the Estate, or call the police and delay the completion of the Estate account.

22.  There were subsequent correspondences between the parties arguing, inter alia, on matters relating to the Estate account.  It is not necessary to set out in detail the disagreement at this stage, except to highlight the following:

(1)  The defendant insisted that she would not make any distribution to the plaintiff until the plaintiff acknowledged the accuracy of the Estate Account (which was not made on oath) and agreed to indemnify the defendant.  This stance was not accepted by the plaintiff.  With a view to amicably settle the matter, the plaintiff had once suggested a revised acknowledgement and acceptance clause which confirm, inter alia, that both the plaintiff and the defendant have no claim against each other, however, the defendant refused and insisted on her own wording.

(2)  The defendant made use of a typographical mistake in Lim & Lok’s letter dated 14 September 2017 whereby it was mistakenly stated that the Cartier watch was taken “from the defendant” in the Deceased’s bedroom, while all along the plaintiff’s position was that the Cartier watch was taken “by the defendant”. As a result of this accidental mistake, the defendant played along, insisted that the plaintiff took a Cartier watch from her and demanded deduction of $10,000 from the Estate account.  The defendant accused Lim & Lok of being “unprofessional” and “pathetic”.  It should be noted that at no time prior to the aforesaid typographical mistake of Lim & Lok had the defendant alleged that the plaintiff took away her Cartier watch.  This reflected the defendant’s lack of propriety and disingenuousness in the administration of the Estate.

(3)  For the purpose of settling the dispute, and without admitting that he had taken the watches, the plaintiff agreed to the defendant’s suggested deduction of $15,000 from his entitlement in the Estate.  Despite the plaintiff’s agreement, the defendant insisted in playing along so that she could delay the distribution.

23.  The plaintiff has previously received 2 interim distributions from the assets of the Estate in the sum of $271,853 and $160,000 in December 2012 and January 2013 respectively.

24.  The most valuable asset of the Estate is the Tseung Kwan O Property which the defendant sold in October 2013 for $4,165,000.

25.  The defendant admitted that she deposited the sale proceeds realised from the Tseung Kwan O Property into her HSBC savings account, which sum is still being held by the defendant.

26.  As of now, the defendant has not produced a properly prepared Estate account, and has not completed the administration of the Estate.  The defendant is still holding the substantial asset of the Estate (mainly the money realised from the Tseung Kwan O property) in her own bank account.

C.     REMOVAL OF THE DEFENDANT AS THE ADMINISTRATRIX

C1.    The legal principles

27.  Section 33(3) of the Probate and Administration Ordinance (“PAO”) provides that:

“The court may, if satisfied that the due and proper administration of the estate and the interests of the persons beneficially entitled thereto so require, suspend or remove an executor or administrator (other than the Official Administrator) and provide for the succession of another person in place of such executor or administrator and for the vesting in that other person of any property belonging to the estate.”

28.  The court has a discretion under section 33(3) of the PAO to remove an administratrix:

(1)  The discretion to remove an administratrix under section 33 of the PAO involves an assessment and a value judgement in all the relevant circumstances of whether removal is required for the due and proper administration of the estate and the interests of the beneficiaries.

(2)  Not every mistake or neglect of duty, or inaccuracy of conduct of trustees will induce to court to remove the administratrix.

(3)  The acts or omissions must be such as to endanger the trust property or to show a want of honesty, or want of proper capacity to execute the duties, or a want of reasonable fidelity.

(4)  Hostility between the administratrix and the beneficiary is not a ground for removal, unless the breakdown of the relations between them is such as to lead to the administration coming to a standstill, or makes it difficult or impossible for the administration to be completed by an existing personal representative.

[Tsang Wing Kwai v Tsang Wing Fai (No 2)[2019] 1 HKLRD 1300 (CA); Tsang Wing Kwai v Tsang Wing Fai [2018] HKCFI 1060 (CFI), §§27-32; Chang Wing Ka John v Chang Wing Dee [2021] HKCFI 47, §§157-160].

C2.    The grounds

29.  The plaintiff submits that the defendant shall be removed on the following grounds:

(1)  The defendant is in a conflict of interest position;

(2)  The defendant failed to produce a proper Estate account in breach of the 2014 Order;

(3)  There was a serious delay in the administration of the Estate.  The defendant was in breach of the 2014 Order which required her to complete the administration of the Estate by May 2014;

(4)  There was a want of honesty and propriety in the defendant’s administration of the Estate.  The defendant was not acting in the best interest of the Estate;

(5)  There was a justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the defendant.

C3.    Conflict of Interest

30.  Among the properties of the Deceased, there was an envelope with the Deceased’s handwriting stating: “此日一百萬借給寶莊 4-NOV-03”.

31.  Inside the envelope, there was (i) a deposit slip showing a deposit of $1,000,000 into the bank account in the joint name of the defendant and her husband; (ii) a Wing Lung Bank statement showing that a fixed deposit in the sum of $500,000 was uplifted with remarks stating the name of the defendant and her husband, and manuscript of “此日之款轉借亜妹”; (iii) a Wing Lung Bank payment slip in the sum of $500,000 paid to the defendant and her husband; and (iv) a piece of paper with the Deceased’s handwriting stating that “入兩張本票給亜妹”.

32.  The above were found in the Deceased’s property on the second day after the Deceased’s death.  Prior to her death, the Deceased had told the plaintiff that she had lent $1,000,000 to the defendant.

33.  The defendant denied that it was a loan from the Deceased.  The defendant alleged that it was a gift.

34.  The defendant’s allegation of a gift was in direct contradiction with the description of a loan written by the Deceased on the envelope.  The defendant alleged, inter alia, that the Deceased did not address her as “亜妹”.

35.  The court does not have to resolve the dispute relating to this $1 million at the hearing of this application.  Suffice to note that this is a matter which requires investigation.  The defendant obviously is in a position in conflict with the interest of the Estate.

36.  This issue was raised in the 2013 Action. B Chu J has remarked in the decision at paragraph 21 that:

“…as matters then stood, [the defendant] would be in conflict to carry out the relief sought, and it would be more appropriate for [the plaintiff] to seek that relief after an action to remove [the defendant] as administratrix, if any, has been dealt with.”[2]

37.  In the 2013 Action, paragraph (2) of the Originating Summons was adjourned sine die with liberty to restore. Thus, the matter relating to the $1 million was expressly left open.

38.  In the past years, the plaintiff had been distracted by the defendant’s unmeritorious appeals, and was then led to the belief that the defendant would honestly distribute the Estate in compliance with the court orders.  Nevertheless, the defendant remains in a conflict of interest position.  On this ground alone, the defendant should not continue to act as the administratrix of the Estate and should be removed.

C4.    Failure to produce a properly prepared Estate Account

39.  Section 56 of the PAO sets out the duty of the defendant, as the administratrix, to produce Estate account and to bring in the inventories.  Section 56 reads as follows:

“The personal representative of a deceased person shall, when lawfully required so to do, exhibit, by affidavit filed in the court, a true and perfect inventory and account of the movable and immovable property of the deceased, and the court shall have power as heretofore to require personal representatives to bring in inventories.”

40.  The duty of an administrator to produce a full and proper estate account has been repeatedly emphasised by the court in many decisions.  See for example: Chow Chak Kiu v Chow Man Chit, HCMP 797/2016 (unrep, 17/01/2017); and Chang Wing Ka John, supra.

41.  In Chow Chak Kiu, Chow J (as he then was) held that:

“40. Generally speaking, to render a proper account of the estate of a deceased person, the personal representative is required to:

(1) show the opening balance (including capital assets) and closing balance;

(2) give details of movement of assets, incomes and expenditure of the estate;

(3) give details of the whereabouts of all properties (including cash) of the estate which the personal representative is duty bound to administer; and

(4) support the account with documentary evidence.

See Re Estate of Lee Da Kor [2010] 1 HKLRD 415, at paragraphs 17 and 26 per Jeremy Poon J (as he then was); Charles Yu Chiu Kwan v Edna Yu Chan Shek Yin, HCMP 965/1980 (22 April 1982) per Rhind J (quoted by B Chu J in Leung Wing Hong v Leung Yiu Cho, HCMP 1473/2014 (11 August 2016), at paragraph 104).

41.  Moreover, it is not acceptable for the personal representative merely to give to the beneficiary a bundle of documents relating to the estate and leave it to the beneficiary to sort out the documents himself (Re Estate of Lee Da Kor, at paragraph 37).”

42.  In Chang Wing Ka John, DHCJ To said:

“179. An administrator’s duty on rendering accounts is well settled. His duty is to keep clean, clear and accurate account and to be always ready to render such account when called upon to do so. Lack of experience is no excuse as in such cases it would be their duty to employ a competent accountant to keep them. To discharge the duty properly, there must be production of the relevant supporting documents and receipts, as well as proper breakdown of items: see Chan Yu Hong. An administrator must at all reasonable times be ready to render a clear and accurate statement of account to a beneficiary, so that the beneficiary is able to see his entitlement under the trust: see Re Estate of Lee Da Kor and Re Leung Kam Wah.”

43.  Judged against the required standard, I agree the Estate account produced by the defendant was not properly prepared.

44.  At one time, in the hope of bringing an expedient resolution of the dispute, the plaintiff did not press on further details of the Estate account.  Nonetheless, agreement could not be reached and the dispute was not resolved.  The Estate account produced by the defendant was not accepted.  The plaintiff had not waived any of his entitlement in this connection.  It remains the defendant’s duty to prepare a full and proper account, which the defendant has failed to do in breach of the 2014 Order.

C5.    Conduct of the defendant shows want of honesty in administration of the Estate and serious delay in the administration

45.  The defendant was in breach of the 2014 Order. The unmeritorious appeal lodged by the defendant was no excuse.  No stay of execution pending appeal was sought by or granted to the defendant.  The delay is serious.  The Deceased passed away in November 2011.  The defendant was ordered to complete the administration of the Estate by mid-2014.  It is now 2021, some 10 years from the death of the Deceased.  The defendant is still holding the assets of the Estate in her own bank account.

46.  I agree that the defendant had made use of all sorts of tactics, excuses and unmeritorious arguments to delay or otherwise extract personal gain from the administration of the Estate.  The examples are plenty.

C5.1  Unmeritorious challenges

47.  Notwithstanding the defendant’s own confirmation in her affirmations filed in support of the application for the grant of L/A that the plaintiff is the son of the Deceased, the defendant reneged her statement made under oath when she was asked to make distribution of the Estate in the 2013 Action.

48.  The CA has held that one of the grounds raised by the defendant in the appeal was “an after-thought, or a delaying tactic”.

C5.2  Unacceptable excuses

49.  In paragraph 43 of the defendant’s 1^st affirmation filed in the present proceedings, she said:

“… [The plaintiff] accused me of refusing to provide the Estate (sic) to him despite repeated requests. But the fact is that [the plaintiff] has never requested any Estate account from me. No supporting documents or justification were provided. And [the plaintiff] has still not provided me with the genuine proof of his birth.”

50.  The defendant sought to explain her failure to perform her duty by accusing the plaintiff of not making request for the account.  The undisputable fact is that the defendant has the duty to keep a proper Estate account even in the absence of request.

51.  As to the challenge on the plaintiff’s status, the undisputable fact is that it was only raised after the plaintiff took out the 2013 Action.  The defendant’s challenge was without basis and dismissed by the court.

52.  In the defendant’s 1^st affirmation filed in the present proceedings at paragraph 45, she attempted to justify her appeals by saying that:

“… In all these years, [the plaintiff] has kept saying that I have been delaying the distribution by filing appeals. I strongly oppose to his unreasonable and unjustifiable remarks, because it is the Hong Kong judiciary system that entitle me the legal right to appeal. The legal right to appeal is available to all and is a core principle in the Hong Kong judiciary system. None of the courts have ordered me to apply for stay of proceedings or distribute the Estate first before appealing.” (Emphasis supplied)

53.  The last sentence concerning the absence of a court order requiring an application for stay of proceedings/execution pending appeal shows either the defendant’s ignorance of the law, or worse still, the defendant’s blatant disregard of the law.  As the defendant admitted, she held Bachelor and Master degrees in finance and law.  She was expressly warned by Messrs Chui & Lau by letter dated 20 May 2014 that the lodging of an appeal does not operate as a stay of execution of court orders.

54.  Further, in paragraph 57 of the defendant’s 1^st affirmation, she said:

“On 13 March 2017, [the plaintiff]’s solicitor Mr Lok of Lim & Lok sent me a letter demanding me to comply with the second instruction in the Order made by the judge in HCMP 3477/2013, that is to complete the administration of the Estate within 7 days, but [the plaintiff] did not request for the Estate account as stated in the first instruction in the Order.” (Original emphasis)

55.  If the defendant highlighted the underlined part above to make the point that she did not receive any request for the Estate account and hence she has not delayed in complying with the 2014 Order, this is obviously wrong.  She has to comply with the 2014 Order even if there was no request from the plaintiff’s solicitors.

56.  In an attempt to cover up the failure to provide supporting documents and/or proper breakdown of items (which is part of her duty as the administratrix to account), the defendant again laid blames on others or made up after-thought excuses.  She deposed to the following in her 1^st affirmation:

(1)  “Mr Lok did not complain about the response time I suggested in my letter of 26 May 2017 and he did not ask for supporting documents for the Estate account ever again.” (paragraph 62)

(2)  “Throughout the years, [the plaintiff] has never asked for accounting entries and bank account number.” (paragraph 63)

(3)  “Since all the assets in the Estate have been converted into cash, it is irrelevant and unnecessary to make accounting entries such as opening balance, yearly income and expenditure breakdown, closing balance, balance sheet of every year, dividends received, etc.” (paragraph 65) (Original emphasis).

57.  The excuses and/or assertions made by the defendant showed that either she was ignorant of the duty of an administratrix; or she was acting in complete disregard of her duty as an administratrix.  Either way, I agree she is unsuitable to be an administratrix and should be removed.

C5.3  The Cartier watch

58.  As mentioned above, the defendant made use of an innocent typographical mistake of Lim & Lok about the Cartier watch in 2017 to advance her personal gain.  She must know whether a Cartier watch had been taken away “from” her.  If there was indeed a Cartier watch taken away from her by the plaintiff, obviously she would claim for it right from the beginning.  She had not.  She had never claimed the same until after Lim & Lok’s mistake, notwithstanding it is clear from the chain of correspondences that the plaintiff was saying that a Cartier watch was taken “by” her.

59.  As shown from the correspondences in April 2019, and even at the hearing before this court, the defendant was still seeking to gain mileage from this innocent mistake.

60.  As submitted by the plaintiff, this shows the defendant’s lack of honesty and integrity.

C5.4  Attempt to extract personal gain in the name of administratrix’ remuneration

61.  The defendant stated that she charged remuneration in reliance on section 60 of the PAO.

62.  Section 60(1) and (2)(a) of the PAO provides as follows:

“(1) Subject to subsection (2), the court may allow to any executor or administrator … such remuneration out of the estate of the deceased person as the court thinks fit.

(2)(a) No allowance shall be made to any executor or administrator or attorney who neglects to pass his accounts at such time, or to dispose of any moneys, goods, chattels, or securities with which he is chargeable in such manner as may be required by probate rules and orders.”

63.  The simple fact is that there is no court order permitting the defendant to charge any remuneration.

64.  The levy of remuneration in the circumstances is without lawful justification.  This is another reason in support of the defendant’s unsuitability to act as the administratrix of the Estate.

C5.5  Unjustified condition for distribution

65.  As mentioned above, the defendant unilaterally imposed the requirement for the plaintiff to sign the “Acknowledgement and Acceptance clause” as a condition for distribution.  This is unjustified and unwarranted.

C5.6  Concluding remarks

66.  As submitted by the plaintiff, there is a serious want of propriety on the part of the defendant in the administration of the Estate.  In the interest of the beneficiaries as a whole and for due and proper administration of the Estate, the defendant ought to be removed from being an administratrix of the Estate.

C6.    Justifiable loss of trust and confidence in the defendant

67.  By reason of the matters set out above and the disagreements as shown in the affirmations, the plaintiff justifiably has no trust and confidence in the defendant at all, making it difficult or impossible for the administration of the Estate to be completed by the existing personal representative.

D.     REVOCATION OF THE EXISTING LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION

68.  The matters discussed above show that the removal of the defendant as the administratrix of the Estate is plainly justified.  However, removal alone is not enough.  In Chan Sau Heung v Kwan Siu Fai, HCMP 2620/2012 (unrep, 17/04/2013) at §34, Poon J (as the CJHC then was) said this:

“… Removing [the defendant] is plainly justified. However, removal alone is not enough. For upon removal, the defendant has to lodge with the court the Grant so that the order for removing him and appointing the plaintiff as administrator can be endorsed on it. Given his uncooperative attitude so far and his failure to participate in these proceedings despite service, there is a real and substantial risk that the defendant will not lodge the Grant with the court even if so directed. It will surely cause further unwarranted delay to the due and proper administration of the estate. The Grant should in the circumstances be revoked.”

69.  Likewise, the revocation of the L/A is justified in the present case, on account of the failure by the defendant up to now to comply with the 2014 Order of B Chu J made in the 2013 Action.

E.     SUITABILITY OF THE PLAINTIFF TO BE APPOINTED AS THE ADMINISTRATOR

70.  Apart from the defendant, the plaintiff is the only other beneficiary of the Estate.  The Estate is simple.  The plaintiff is ready, willing and able to act as the administrator.  There is no valid ground to suggest that he is not capable of being the administrator.

F.     CONCLUSION

71.  For the reasons set out above, I hold that the defendant ought to be removed as the administratrix of the Estate and the L/A ought to be revoked.  Accordingly, I make the following order:

(1)  The Letters of Administration (Grant No HCAG 011013/2012 and all other grants, if any) in respect of the Estate of the Deceased granted to the defendant be revoked.

(2)  The defendant be removed as the Administratrix of the Estate, and the plaintiff be appointed as the administrator of the Estate in place of the defendant.

(3)  Lodging of the Letters of Administration by the defendant with the Probate Registry be dispensed with.

(4)  Within 21 days from the date of this order, the defendant do furnish to the plaintiff the true and perfect inventories and accounts of the Estate (the “Inventories”) by way of affidavit, and the Inventories shall:

(a)  show the opening balance (including capital assets) as at the date of death of the Deceased and closing balance as at the date of this order;

(b)  give details of each of the movement of assets, incomes and expenditure of the Estate up to the date of this order;

(c)  give details of the whereabouts of all properties (including cash) of the Estate; and

(d)  be supported by documentary evidence, including but without limitation to invoices, receipts, vouchers, bank statements, bank deposit slip, bank withdrawal slip, etc.

(5)  Simultaneous upon the furnishing of the Inventories pursuant to paragraph 4 above, the defendant do deliver to the plaintiff, and allow the plaintiff to retain, the original copies of all supporting documents in relation to the Inventories.

(6)  A fresh grant of Letters of Administration of the Estate be issued to the plaintiff upon compliance with the usual procedures required by the Registrar of the Probate Registry.

(7)  All the assets of the Estate be vested in the plaintiff as the administrator of the Estate upon the issuance of the fresh grant of the Letters of Administration to the plaintiff.

(8)  The defendant do deliver up to the plaintiff all assets, monies, and documents of the Estate within 21 days of this order.

(9)  Paragraphs 8 and 9 of the Originating Summons herein be adjourned sine die with liberty to restore.

(10)  The parties do have liberty to apply for such further or other directions as may be necessary to give effect to this order.

72.  Regarding costs, the defendant was in serious dereliction of duties, breach of court orders and has displayed unreasonable conduct in the administration of the Estate.  She has sought to gain personal advantages from her status as the administratrix.  In these circumstances, I order that the costs of and occasioned by these proceedings be paid by the defendant personally (and not out of the assets of the Estate) on an indemnity basis, such costs are to be taxed if not agreed.