VIK v VIL and others [2020] SGHCF 12

Outcome: Orders made

Facts

1.          The professional Administrator of the Testator’s Estate applied for court approval to sell one of two real properties in the Estate (“Property”). The issues on appeal included: (a) whether the Administrator’s application was res judicata; and (b) the capacity of the Administrator to bring the application and (c ) the basis for the proposed sale of the Property.

Court’s Decision:

2.           The court held that the application was not res judicata. Applying the Probate and Administration Act 1934 (“PAA”), the court ordered the sale of the Property. No order was made in respect of the other proprty.

3.           Res judicata consists of three “conceptually distinct but interrelated principles”: (a) cause of action estoppel; (b) issue estoppel; and (c) the “extended doctrine” of res judicata or defence of “abuse of process”: at [36].

4.           The requirements of issue estoppel are as follows: (at [37] to [38], [41], and [43])

(a)  There must be a final and conclusive judgment on the merits.
(b)  That judgment must be by a court of competent jurisdiction
(c)  The two actions being compared must involve the same parties.
(d)  There must be identity of subject matter in the two proceedings, and further:

(i)  the grounds of the prior decision and subsequent proceedings must overlap, and the facts and circumstances informing the prior decision must not have changed, or must be incapable of change;
(ii)  from a commonsensical perspective, the previous determination must be essential to the decision; and
(iii) the issue must have been raised and argued.

If issue estoppel is not established, solutions which had been previously raised and rejected under different circumstances, can be raised again at a later stage.

5.           For the abuse of process doctrine, the court should look at all circumstances of the case – whether the later proceedings in substance constitute a collateral attack on the previous decision, whether there were genuine reasons why the issue was not earlier raised, and whether there were some other special circumstances justifying proceeding with the case. Absence or existence of these non-exhaustive factors is not decisive: at [44].

6.           An administrator is different from a trustee. The administrator calls in and converts assets, and pays expenses – he or she becomes a trustee after his or her work to distribute the administered estate is complete. The applicable regime for an administrator is the PAA rather than the Trustees Act 1967, and the power to sell is provided in s 57(4) of the PAA: at [51] to [52] and [63].

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.