Tan Zhi Wei, Alan (Chen Zhiwei, Alan) v Tan Jia Lin, Jaylin

Facts

Mr Tan Sue Hua died intestate on 7 May 2018, leaving his widow, his son (the applicant, Tan Zhi Wei, Alan) and his daughter (the respondent, Tan Jia Lin, Jaylin) as the only beneficiaries. The estate consisted mainly of shares in two properties. After disputes over who should administer it, the widow stepped aside and the son and daughter jointly obtained letters of administration from the Family Courts on 27 June 2022. Fresh disputes then arose between them over opening a bank account for the estate.

On 18 May 2023 the son filed Originating Application No 511 of 2023 in the General Division of the High Court, asking that his sister be removed as joint administrator, or alternatively that the court administer the estate or order her to cooperate with him. She objected that the General Division had no jurisdiction because the matter belonged to the Family Justice Courts.

Issue

Whether an application to remove a joint administrator may be brought in the General Division or must be brought in the Family Courts.

Holding

Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the application on the preliminary jurisdictional issue, without considering its merits, and ordered costs fixed at $2,000, including disbursements, to be paid to the respondent. Any fresh application would have to be made to the Family Courts.

Reasoning

The judge found the power to remove a co-administrator in s 32 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934, which allows a grant to be revoked or amended for sufficient cause; removal is in substance a partial revocation and an amendment of the original grant. That power forms part of the General Division's civil jurisdiction under s 17(1)(f) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, but s 22(1)(a) of the Family Justice Act 2014 requires it to be exercised through the Family Division, and s 26(2) gives the Family Courts the same jurisdiction. Family proceedings include civil proceedings under the probate statute from 1 January 2015, and s 26(3A) requires proceedings that may be heard by either a Family Court or the Family Division to start in a Family Court. The order reserving revocation proceedings to the Family Division did not apply, because a Family Court had made the grant. This reading was confirmed by the Explanatory Statement to the Family Justice Bill and by Parliament's aim of a specialist court for all family-related cases. The son's argument that the application was not about the grant and needed the court's inherent jurisdiction therefore failed.

From the judgment