In the Matter of an Application by WKQ and another matter

Facts

A man of French origin died intestate on 10 January 2021. The applicant, WKQ, obtained letters of administration from the Vanuatu court on 10 November 2021 as his wife, and on 22 February 2022 applied ex parte in HCF/P 112/2022 to have that grant resealed in Singapore. The deceased's father, WKR, filed a caveat in HCF/CAVP 11/2022, objecting that the grant was not lawfully obtained and that the applicant was not a lawful beneficiary. He then applied in HCF/SUM 123/2022 to stay the resealing until proceedings contesting the grant in Vanuatu were concluded.

At that time no such proceedings existed. The caveator later began a Vanuatu case, which was struck out on 11 August 2022; he told the Singapore court an appeal had been filed when it had not, and his later application for leave to appeal out of time was discontinued. He argued that the deceased was domiciled in the United Arab Emirates, not Vanuatu, and that the applicant was never married to the deceased, also alleging that a signature on the Vanuatu citizenship forms was forged. The applicant pointed to the deceased's Vanuatu citizenship and passport, a Vanuatu marriage certificate and the children's birth certificates. The caveator appealed after the decision, and these are the grounds.

Issues

1. Whether the stay of the resealing application should be granted
2. Whether it appeared under s 47(4) of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 that the deceased was not domiciled in Vanuatu
3. What effect the resealing had on the caveat

Holding

The court dismissed the caveator's stay application with costs and allowed the applicant's ex parte application, ordering that the Vanuatu grant be resealed. It made no order removing the caveat, which ceased to have effect as a consequence of the reseal.

Reasoning

The stay was sought only until the Vanuatu proceedings concluded, and by the November hearing they had: the caveator's discontinuance ended his challenge to the grant. A further stay pending a late intervention application would have been incongruous, as the resealing application had been pending for more than nine months and no reason was given for not intervening earlier.

On domicile, the test is whether it appears that the deceased was not domiciled in the foreign jurisdiction. The court accepted, on the evidence then available, that the applicant was the deceased's wife: he had said so to the Vanuatu authorities, they and the Vanuatu court treated her as such, the UAE courts did too, and the caveator had acknowledged her as the wife in the UAE proceedings, though he now said that was a false position taken so the children would be treated as legitimate. That acknowledgment was against his interest. The court was not prepared to accept summarily that the signature was forged or that the applicant was implicated. It could not conclude the couple never entered Vanuatu, the UAE residence permit expired on 23 April 2019, and it was unlikely he intended to settle apart from his wife and children. Seeking Vanuatu citizenship for himself, his wife and their child indicated an intention to settle there. It did not appear he was domiciled elsewhere, so resealing was open.

The caveat had served its purpose of ensuring notice, and was spent once the reseal was ordered.

From the judgment