1. ) Lee Shuzhen 2. ) Lee Seng Yao 3. ) Lee Shu Ying 4. ) Lee Seng Him 5. ) Wong Lai Yee Lee Chew Lian

1. ) Lee Shuzhen 2. ) Lee Seng Yao 3. ) Lee Shu Ying 4. ) Lee Seng Him 5. ) Wong Lai Yee Lee Chew Lian

Although jurisdictionally this court could set aside an ex‑parte order under Order 32 r 6, the proper and most appropriate forum to challenge an ex‑parte supplemental order made in a Probate OS is the original Probate OS in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur; therefore the plaintiffs' application for extension of time (enclosure 12) was dismissed and the plaintiffs must pursue their grievances in the Probate OS.

Citation
BA-24NCvC-807-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: LEE SHU ZHEN; Plaintiff: LEE SENG YAO; Plaintiff: LEE SHU YING; Plaintiff: LEE SENG HIM; Plaintiff: WONG LAI YEE; Defendant (executor and Trustee): LEE CHEW LIAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 April 2022
Case Number
BA-24NCvC-807-07/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (probate and Administration) / Interlocutory — Application for Extension of Time and to Set Aside Ex‑parte Order (enclosure 12 Heard and Dismissed; Enclosure 1 Pending)
Outcome
Enclosure 12 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Ex‑parte Order, Extension of Time, Setting Aside Orders, Jurisdiction, Natural Justice, Variation of Assets and Liabilities
Source Language
Malay/English
Probate and Administration Civil Procedure Trusts and Trustees Estate Law Ex‑parte Order Extension of Time Setting Aside Orders Jurisdiction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LEE SHU ZHEN

Plaintiff

LEE SENG YAO

Plaintiff

LEE SHU YING

Plaintiff

LEE SENG HIM

Plaintiff

WONG LAI YEE

Plaintiff

LEE CHEW LIAN

Defendant (executor and Trustee)

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (probate and Administration) / Interlocutory — Application for Extension of Time and to Set Aside Ex‑parte Order (enclosure 12 Heard and Dismissed; Enclosure 1 Pending)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Shah Alam High Court may set aside an ex‑parte probate order made by the High Court at Kuala Lumpur
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs should have filed applications in the original Probate OS in Kuala Lumpur rather than in collateral proceedings
  3. 3 Whether extension of time to file to set aside the ex‑parte order ought to be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Although jurisdictionally this court could set aside an ex‑parte order under Order 32 r 6, the proper and most appropriate forum to challenge an ex‑parte supplemental order made in a Probate OS is the original Probate OS in the High Court at Kuala Lumpur; therefore the plaintiffs' application for extension of time (enclosure 12) was dismissed and the plaintiffs must pursue their grievances in the Probate OS.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 12 dismissed.

Orders

  • Enclosure 12 dismissed.
  • Costs of RM2,000.00 awarded to the Defendant