XLX v XLZ and another

The appellant, XLX, and his two siblings, XLZ and XLY, were all self-represented. The siblings were the executors and trustees of their mother's estate. The appellant brought FC/OSP 20/2024 in the Family Justice Courts seeking a fair and accurate statement of accounts and timely execution of the probate. The respondents filed a joint affidavit annexing a statement of account, which had been sent to the appellant on 13 September 2024. On 31 January 2025 the District Judge found the statement fair and accurate and dismissed the application, ordering the parties to bear their own costs.

In District Court Appeal No 22 of 2025, the appellant challenged several entries in the statement: a DBS savings account shown at nil, a motor vehicle shown at nil although it had been scrapped, two insurance policies shown as pending, the full net legal costs of litigation over two properties, and mortgage liabilities on those two properties. He also asked the court to rule on the size of the estate and his entitlement, and sought costs below on the ground of unjustifiable delay. The court gave directions before the hearing for the respondents to produce documents on the disputed items and heard oral evidence from them at the hearing.

1. Whether the statement of account was a fair and accurate account of the estate
2. Whether the District Judge should have ruled on the estate's asset pool and the appellant's entitlement
3. Whether the District Judge should have ordered costs below in the appellant's favour

The court treated the application as one for an account on the common basis, since the appellant had not shown misconduct or breach of duty needed for an account on a wilful default basis. Although the procedure for taking accounts under the Family Justice Rules 2014 had not been followed, it used the judge-led approach because all parties were self-represented. The respondents bore the burden of justifying disbursements (falsification) and the appellant the burden of showing that sums should be added (surcharge). The first respondent accepted at the hearing that the savings account was a single account, and there was no evidence for the suggestion that the bank used the money for credit card payments. The second respondent said he sold the car to a dealer for perhaps around $10,000, so its listed value of $12,305 had to be brought in. The second respondent was the sole beneficiary of the policies, so including their listed values would not affect entitlements, and the respondents agreed. The litigation concerned properties held by both parents, so only half its cost belonged to this estate, and the respondents accepted the mortgages had been discharged.

On entitlement, the originating summons had sought only accounts and timely execution, and neither side had made submissions on the point, so separate applications would be needed. The court shared, purely as an obiter observation, that the net estate should include the two properties.

On costs, there had been some delay, but the respondents had explained it, and the District Judge's discretion was not shown to be clearly inequitable or wrong in principle.

The High Court allowed the appeal in part. It ordered the respondents to amend the statement of account: the savings account to show $6,224.20, the vehicle $12,305, the MSIG and Aviva policies $25,000 and $10,882.57, the legal costs of $137,351.11 to be halved, and the two properties not to carry mortgage liabilities. It declined to rule on entitlement, left the costs order below undisturbed and made no order on costs of the appeal.