Case Details
- Citation: [2021] SGHCF 15
- Title: VJZ and another v VKB and others
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division of the High Court, Family Division)
- Coram: Choo Han Teck J
- Date of Decision: 09 June 2021
- Case Number: Originating Summons Probate No 3 of 2019 (Summonses Nos 36 and 58 of 2020)
- Decision Type: Determination on applications for remuneration (including whether matter should be declared reasonable or sent for taxation)
- Plaintiff/Applicant: VJZ and another (former joint administrators of the deceased’s estate)
- Defendant/Respondent: VKB and others (beneficiaries under the will, in multiple factions)
- Judgment Length: 3 pages, 1,808 words
- Legal Area: Probate and Administration — Personal representatives (remuneration)
- Statutes Referenced: Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed); Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed); (also referenced: Public Trustee (Fees) Rules S 248/2010)
- Key Procedural Posture: Applicants sought declarations that their remuneration and solicitors’ costs were reasonable; certain beneficiaries objected and sought taxation
- Counsel for Applicants: Tan Xeauwei, Afzal Ali and Marrissa Miralini Karuna (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
- Counsel for 1st to 5th and 15th Respondents: Devinder Kumar s/o Ram Sakal Rai and Leong Wen Jia Nicholas (ACIES Law Corporation)
- Counsel for 10th to 14th Respondents: Kanyakumari d/o Veerasamy and Loh Weijie Leonard (Tan Kok Quan Partnership)
- Other Respondents: 6th and 7th respondents in person; 8th and 9th respondents absent and unrepresented
- Notable Prior Orders in the Same Estate Administration: ORC 253 (13 August 2019) and ORC 212 (3 August 2020)
- Cases Cited: [2021] SGHCF 15 (as a reference in metadata); Re Econ Corp Ltd (in provisional liquidation) [2004] 2 SLR(R) 264; Re Potters Oils Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 201; VIK v VIL and others [2021] 3 SLR 857
Summary
In VJZ and another v VKB and others [2021] SGHCF 15, the High Court (Family Division) addressed how remuneration claims by personal representatives should be assessed where beneficiaries dispute the reasonableness of the administrators’ work and solicitors’ fees. The applicants were former joint administrators of a deceased’s estate, appointed after executors named in the will renounced their rights. After the beneficiaries entered settlement agreements governing administration and remuneration, the administrators sought declarations that their fees and their solicitors’ costs were reasonable and payable out of the estate.
The court declined to grant the declarations sought. Applying principles articulated in Re Econ Corp Ltd (in provisional liquidation) [2004] 2 SLR(R) 264, Choo Han Teck J held that the affidavits and supporting materials did not provide sufficient detail about the qualifications, experience, and necessity of the team members involved, nor did the solicitors’ invoices consistently explain the complexity and urgency of work. Given the size of the sums claimed and the inadequacy of the evidential record, the court ordered that the matter proceed for taxation, while reserving costs after the taxation hearing.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The deceased died on 31 October 2012, leaving a will dated 24 November 1995. The will named three executors, but all three later renounced their rights in May 2015. This led to a dispute among the beneficiaries as to who should administer the estate. The 15 beneficiaries were divided into three factions: Family [A] (the 1st to 5th and 15th respondents), Family [B] (the 10th to 14th respondents), and the “Unrepresented Beneficiaries” (the 6th to 9th respondents). The record indicates that Family [B] estimated the estate’s value at between US$200 million and US$300 million, underscoring the scale and complexity of the administration.
Eventually, on 19 March 2018, Foo Tuat Yien JC appointed the applicants as joint administrators of the estate. The administration then became contentious, with the beneficiaries disagreeing on the appropriate approach and, later, on the remuneration payable to the administrators and their solicitors. The court’s later orders show that the remuneration framework was not left entirely to general law; it was shaped by settlement agreements and court directions.
On 18 April 2018, the beneficiaries entered into a “First Settlement Agreement” to settle their differences. Subsequently, on 13 August 2019, Tan Puay Boon JC made orders in HCF/ORC 253/2019 (“ORC 253”). ORC 253 required the applicants to administer the estate in accordance with the First Settlement Agreement. Importantly for remuneration, ORC 253 recognised that the applicants were entitled to reimbursement from the estate for “such reasonable expenses properly incurred” in administering the estate in all jurisdictions, and to receive “reasonable remuneration for services performed” in the administration in all jurisdictions.
ORC 253 also set out a procedural mechanism for remuneration assessment. Under Schedule 2, the applicants were to render an interim bill with a statement of work. If a majority of respondents did not object within ten working days, the applicants could satisfy the interim bill from the estate and render an account. If a majority objected, the applicants were required to apply to the Singapore Court for a determination on the interim bill. This structure foreshadowed the later dispute: whether the court should declare reasonableness or whether the administrators’ claims should be assessed through taxation.
On 13 December 2019, the beneficiaries entered a “Second Settlement Agreement” providing for the administration to be taken over by the 1st respondent and another person. On 3 August 2020, Tan Puay Boon JC ordered in HCF/ORC 212/2020 (“ORC 212”) that the Second Settlement Agreement replace the First Settlement Agreement. ORC 212 preserved reimbursement for costs and expenses already approved under Schedule 2, and further provided for “all other reasonable costs and expenses incurred in the administration of the Estate and in the handover to the new administrators.”
After the handover, the applicants’ solicitors wrote to the beneficiaries on 29 January and 1 February 2021, referring to ORC 212 and requesting payment of the applicants’ and solicitors’ fees. Both Family [A] and Family [B] objected that the fees were too high. Family [A] then initiated proceedings by filing HCF/SUM 36/2021 (“SUM 36”) on 23 February 2021, arguing that the matter should be sent for taxation rather than resolved by declaration. The applicants responded with HCF/SUM 58/2021 (“SUM 58”) filed on 16 March 2021, seeking declarations that their fees and solicitors’ legal costs were reasonable and payable out of the estate.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal issue was procedural and evidential: whether the court should determine reasonableness by way of declaration on the material before it, or whether the dispute should be referred to taxation. Family [A] contended that “reasonableness” under Schedule 2 required an assessment exercise, and that the appropriate mechanism was taxation under Rule 863 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 or under s 66 of the Probate and Administration Act. The applicants, by contrast, sought declarations that their remuneration and solicitors’ fees were reasonable, relying on statutory authority and the court’s earlier orders.
A second issue concerned the standard of disclosure and the sufficiency of evidence. The court had to decide whether the affidavits and “fee narratives” provided adequate information to enable the court to assess reasonableness directly. This required the court to consider what level of detail is necessary when fiduciary remuneration is challenged—particularly where the remuneration claimed is substantial and involves multiple team members and solicitors’ invoices for a prolonged, contentious administration.
Finally, the court had to consider the relevance of principles developed for insolvency practitioners to the remuneration of administrators. Although Re Econ concerned insolvency practitioners, the court needed to determine whether its “general application” principles for fiduciary remuneration should guide the assessment of administrators’ remuneration in probate proceedings.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Choo Han Teck J began by considering the approach in Re Econ Corp Ltd (in provisional liquidation) [2004] 2 SLR(R) 264. In Re Econ, Rajah JC had set out principles for determining remuneration for insolvency practitioners, drawing on Singapore legislation and comparative jurisprudence. The court emphasised that remuneration assessments require more than a time-spent accounting; the court must be able to evaluate the complexity of the matter, the effectiveness of work done, the responsibilities undertaken, and the qualifications and experience of those performing the work.
Crucially, Rajah JC in Re Econ highlighted that disclosure must be in proportion to the remuneration sought. The court also observed that the taxing master is often better placed to determine remuneration, because the court is “ill-equipped” to conduct a detailed investigation of charges on an itemised basis without expert-like guidance. This reasoning was supported by the observations of Hoffmann J in Re Potters Oils Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 201, where the court noted the practical limitations of judicial assessment of detailed receiver’s charges.
Although Re Econ concerned insolvency practitioners, the judge accepted Mr Rai’s submission that the case was relevant because it discussed principles of “general application” to the remuneration of fiduciaries, which includes administrators. The court therefore treated Re Econ as providing the appropriate framework for evaluating whether the applicants’ materials were sufficient for a declaration of reasonableness, and whether taxation was the more appropriate forum for resolving itemised disputes.
Applying those principles, the court found the applicants’ affidavits and supporting materials wanting. While the “fee narratives” provided detailed descriptions of tasks performed and summaries of hours, they did not state each person’s years of experience, qualifications, or the need for the number of team members. The court also found that the materials did not explain who did what task and why that person’s role was necessary. Given the size of the sums claimed, the court held that the applicants had an obligation to provide further detail.
The judge illustrated the deficiency with an example relating to the appointment of solicitors. The fee narrative and summary indicated that 10 hours were spent by different categories of staff (partner, director, manager, associate) on receiving and perusing an email about engagement and appointment. However, the materials did not explain who among those persons actually received and perused the email, what their qualifications and experience were, or why their involvement was necessary for that task. Similar gaps existed across other items.
The court made a parallel finding regarding the solicitors’ invoices. The invoices did not consistently indicate the nature, complexity, and urgency of phone calls, meetings, or emails. Some entries were generic, such as “Drafting email to clients” or “Drafting correspondence,” without elaboration on complexity or urgency. The invoices also did not state the experience and qualification of each team member, nor why particular persons were required for particular tasks. In the judge’s view, these shortcomings undermined the court’s ability to determine reasonableness on the existing record.
Having concluded that the evidential record was insufficient for a declaration, the court then considered whether it should require further affidavits for judicial review or instead send the matter for taxation. The judge agreed with Rajah JC that the taxing master is best placed to assess reasonableness, given the taxing master’s experience in determining solicitors’ remuneration and litigation costs. The court also noted the absence of evidence on the usual industry rate for professional administrators, and it referenced a comparator case, VIK v VIL and others [2021] 3 SLR 857, where an administrator was a trust corporation and the unpaid administration and legal fees were of a similar order of magnitude over a multi-year period.
In addition, the court observed that the parties’ affidavits disputed specific items and focused on whether particular work was reasonable. That meant that the dispute was inherently itemised and would likely require a granular assessment. Rather than ordering further affidavits that could lead to further disputes, the court considered it more appropriate for each item to be resolved in a taxation hearing. This approach aligned with the rationale in Re Econ and the practical limitations of judicial assessment of detailed charges.
What Was the Outcome?
The court granted SUM 36 (the beneficiaries’ application) and dismissed SUM 58 (the applicants’ application for declarations). It ordered that the matter proceed for taxation, while preserving the possibility for the Registrar to allow further evidence. The court also reserved the issue of costs until after the taxation hearing.
Practically, this meant that the administrators and their solicitors would not receive a court declaration that their fees were reasonable on the basis of the existing affidavits and fee narratives. Instead, the reasonableness of the claimed remuneration and costs would be assessed through the taxation process, item by item, with the taxing master applying the relevant principles and requiring adequate substantiation.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for probate and administration practice in Singapore because it clarifies that remuneration disputes involving personal representatives and their solicitors may not be resolved by declarations where the supporting material is insufficiently detailed. The court’s reliance on Re Econ demonstrates that the “general application” principles for fiduciary remuneration extend beyond insolvency contexts. Lawyers advising administrators, executors, or trustees should therefore treat Re Econ as a benchmark for what courts expect in remuneration applications, including proportional disclosure and explanation of the necessity and expertise of team members.
From a procedural standpoint, the case reinforces that taxation is often the preferred route where disputes are itemised and where invoices and narratives do not provide enough information for the court to determine reasonableness directly. Practitioners should anticipate that if the record does not clearly identify who performed each task, their qualifications and experience, and why their involvement was necessary, the court may decline to grant declarations and instead direct taxation.
For beneficiaries and those opposing remuneration claims, the case provides a structured basis to challenge fee narratives and invoices. The court accepted arguments that generic descriptions and incomplete explanations of complexity, urgency, and staffing rationale are inadequate. This supports a more rigorous approach to scrutinising remuneration claims, particularly in large estates where the sums claimed may be substantial and the administration may involve multiple jurisdictions and contentious issues.
Legislation Referenced
- Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) — including s 66 (as argued by the applicants/respondents in submissions)
- Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) — including s 41R(6) (as relied upon by the applicants)
- Public Trustee (Fees) Rules (S 248/2010) — Rule 6(1)(i) (referenced for comparative context)
- Family Justice Rules 2014 (S 813/2014) — Rule 863 (as argued in submissions)
Cases Cited
- Re Econ Corp Ltd (in provisional liquidation) [2004] 2 SLR(R) 264
- Re Potters Oils Ltd [1986] 1 WLR 201
- VIK v VIL and others [2021] 3 SLR 857
Source Documents
This article analyses [2021] SGHCF 15 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.