Case Details
- Title: XVI v XVJ & Anor
- Citation: [2025] SGHCF 65
- Court: High Court (Family Division)
- Date: 27 November 2025 (judgment reserved; hearing dates: 3 March 2022, 1–2 July 2025, 15, 31 October 2025)
- Judges: Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: XVI
- Defendant/Respondent: XVJ & Anor
- Proceedings: Suit No 5 of 2017; Summons No 365 of 2021
- Legal Areas: Probate and Administration; Equity; Remedies; Account
- Key Procedural Posture: Taking of account on a “wilful default” basis following an earlier High Court decision
- Underlying Estate Matter: Administration of late father’s estate; executor and co-executor roles; sale of estate property during the course of proceedings
- Judgment Length: 61 pages; 17,005 words
- Parties’ Roles: First defendant (XVJ) appointed executor; plaintiff (XVI) appointed co-executor; second defendant (XVK) beneficiary (watching brief on costs)
- Core Asset: Two-storey shophouse (the “Property”)
- Earlier Decision Referenced: HCF/JUD 2/2020 (delivered 6 February 2020) ordering an account on wilful default basis
Summary
This case concerns a long-running dispute between two brothers over the administration of their late father’s estate. The plaintiff, XVI, and the first defendant, XVJ, were both involved in the administration: XVJ was appointed executor, while XVI was later added as co-executor. The dispute centred on the executor’s handling of a key estate asset—a two-storey shophouse—and, in particular, the rental and licence fees generated from the property after the testator’s death.
After an earlier decision (HCF/JUD 2/2020) ordered that an account be taken on a “wilful default” basis, the plaintiff brought Summons No 365 of 2021 seeking further directions for the taking of accounts and enquiries. The High Court (Family Division) had to determine the amount payable by the first defendant to the estate in relation to rental and licence fees from the date of death to the date of sale of the property, applying established equitable principles governing accounts on wilful default.
In the course of the proceedings, the property was sold and the net sale proceeds were deposited with the Accountant-General’s Department. The court’s decision ultimately addressed the quantum of the rental/licence component owed to the estate, and it also dealt with related prayers concerning interest and costs, including how costs should be paid out of estate funds where appropriate.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The testator died testate in Singapore on 30 October 1989. Approximately seven years earlier, he had executed a will dated 27 February 1982 dealing with his Singapore properties. The principal asset of the estate was a two-storey shophouse located at an address redacted in the judgment (the “Property”). The first defendant, XVJ, was the registered proprietor of the Property, holding title as tenants-in-common: a one-half share for himself and the remaining one-half share on trust for the estate. This trust arrangement was critical because it meant the estate was not entitled to the entirety of the rental income from the Property, but rather to the portion attributable to the half-share held on trust.
Initially, the plaintiff contended that the half-share registered in XVJ’s name belonged beneficially to the estate, which would have entitled the estate to 100% of rental and licence income. However, in an ex tempore judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected that contention and affirmed XVJ’s beneficial interest in the half-share registered in his name. As a result, the plaintiff’s claim had to be reframed around the estate’s entitlement to the half-share held on trust.
Operationally, XVJ controlled and rented out the entire ground floor of the Property. For the upper floor, the plaintiff and his wife occupied one room, while XVJ controlled and used the remaining rooms and rented out some of them from time to time. The first defendant collected and kept all rents and profits from the Property. The plaintiff therefore alleged that XVJ, in his capacity as executor (and also personally), failed to administer the estate properly, including by not accounting to the estate for rental and licence income that should have been received and/or properly recorded.
Procedurally, the plaintiff commenced HCF/S 5/2017 both as co-executor and as a beneficiary. The claim sought, among other things, (i) accounts and enquiries regarding the estate property coming into XVJ’s hands as executor or for his use, and (ii) an inquiry into what parts of the testator’s property remained outstanding or undisposed. The matter was tried before a Judicial Commissioner, Tan Puay Boon (“Tan JC”), who delivered HCF/JUD 2/2020 on 6 February 2020. In that earlier decision, Tan JC ordered that an account be taken on the footing of wilful default on the part of XVJ in his administration of the estate.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal issue was the scope and method of taking an account on a “wilful default” basis. The court had to decide what the first defendant was required to account for, not only in respect of rental and licence fees actually received, but also in respect of rental/licence income that could or might have been received had the executor acted diligently and complied with his fiduciary duties.
A second key issue concerned the evidential and computational approach to quantifying the “might have received” component. The parties had jointly appointed an expert accountant, Mr Iain Potter, who produced a report concluding that it was “highly likely” the Property could have generated more rental income than was recorded in XVJ’s rent ledger. However, the expert also noted that he could not definitively say whether XVJ had actually collected more than what was recorded, and the parties disputed the correct calculation.
Finally, the court had to address ancillary but important issues relating to the plaintiff’s prayers for further directions, including costs and interest. In particular, the court had to determine how costs of the proceedings should be treated in the context of estate administration—especially whether and to what extent costs should be paid out of estate funds where they were not recovered from or paid by another person.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by restating the established principles governing accounts on wilful default. First, a beneficiary seeking such an account must allege and prove at least one act of wilful neglect or default. This requirement reflects the fact that a wilful default account is not automatic; it is a more stringent remedy than a common account because it carries a broader liability for the trustee/executor.
Second, the court emphasised that an account on wilful default is not available “as of right”. The beneficiary must satisfy the threshold of wilful neglect or default, and the court retains discretion in the manner and extent of the account. This principle is consistent with the approach in Cheong Soh Chin v Eng Chiet Shoong [2019] 4 SLR 714, which the court cited for the proposition that wilful default accounts are not granted automatically.
Third, the court analysed the scope of the wilful default account. Relying on UVJ v UVH [2020] 2 SLR 336 and the earlier authority of Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2005] SGCA 4, the court explained that the scope of a wilful default account is wider than that of a common account. Under a wilful default account, the trustee/executor must account not only for what he has received, but also for what he might have received had he not been in default. This is the key doctrinal difference: the remedy is designed to prevent a trustee from benefiting from his own failure and to approximate the financial position the estate would have enjoyed with proper administration.
The court then applied these principles to the rental and licence income dispute. The earlier decision (HCF/JUD 2/2020) had already determined that the account should be taken on a wilful default footing. Accordingly, the present hearing was focused on quantification: what amount should be treated as payable by XVJ to the estate, given the evidence and the expert’s methodology.
In this regard, the expert report (the “Potter report”) played a central role. Mr Potter presented two alternative methods for calculating the rental income the Property could have generated. The court described the expert’s conclusion that it was “highly likely” the Property could have been used to generate more rental income than was recorded in XVJ’s rent ledger. However, the expert could not state with certainty that XVJ had in fact collected more than recorded; rather, the expert’s role was to estimate the potential income based on the Property’s rental capacity and the circumstances of its use.
The court’s analysis therefore had to reconcile the evidential limitations with the legal requirement to account for what might have been received. The “might have received” standard does not require proof on a balance of probabilities that the trustee actually collected the higher amount; instead, it requires a reasoned assessment of the income the estate could reasonably have obtained with diligent administration. The court’s task was to choose between, or combine, the expert’s alternative methods in a manner consistent with the wilful default framework.
Although the provided extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the structure of the decision indicates that the court considered (i) the order made by Tan JC for taking of account on wilful default basis, (ii) the rental and licence fees actually received by XVJ, (iii) the rental income that could have been received if XVJ had been diligent, and (iv) the plaintiff’s further prayers, including interest and costs. The court also addressed the question of “successful party” for costs purposes, and the plaintiff’s right to have costs paid out of estate funds to the extent not recovered from other persons.
In practical terms, the court had to determine the period from the testator’s death (30 October 1989) up to the date of sale of the Property (16 September 2022). During that period, XVJ controlled the Property and collected rents and profits. The wilful default finding meant that the court could treat the executor as liable for the shortfall between (a) the rental/licence income actually recorded and (b) the rental/licence income the estate could have obtained with proper diligence.
The court also had to account for the fact that the estate’s entitlement was limited to the half-share held on trust. This limitation would necessarily affect the quantum: even if the Property could have generated higher overall rental income, only the portion attributable to the estate’s beneficial interest would be payable to the estate. The court’s reasoning therefore required careful allocation between XVJ’s beneficial share and the estate’s trust share.
What Was the Outcome?
The court’s outcome addressed the amount payable by XVJ to the estate in relation to rental and licence fees derived from the Property over the relevant period. The Property was sold on 16 September 2022, and the net sale proceeds were deposited with the Accountant-General’s Department on 20 September 2022. Prior to the final determination at the present stage, the court had ordered payment of an undisputed minimum sum of $230,338.13 from the sale proceeds to the estate’s account, representing the minimum amount owed based on the expert’s report.
Following the present decision, the court would have determined the final accounting figure on the wilful default basis, and it also made consequential orders on interest and costs. The judgment further dealt with how costs should be paid, including the plaintiff’s entitlement to have costs paid out of estate funds insofar as they were not recovered from or paid by any other person.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts operationalise the equitable remedy of an account on a wilful default basis in estate administration disputes. The doctrinal anchor is the distinction between a common account and a wilful default account: the latter requires the trustee/executor to account for what he might have received with diligent administration, not merely what he actually received.
For lawyers advising executors, co-executors, and beneficiaries, the case underscores the evidential and strategic importance of (i) establishing wilful neglect or default, and (ii) preparing robust accounting evidence capable of supporting a “might have received” computation. The court’s reliance on expert methodology—particularly where the trustee’s records are incomplete or unreliable—demonstrates that courts will engage with estimation techniques, but will still require a principled approach consistent with the legal standard.
From a litigation management perspective, the case also highlights the procedural complexity of probate-related accounting disputes. The property was sold during the proceedings, and funds were deposited with the Accountant-General’s Department. This shows that courts can manage estate assets in a way that preserves the ability to satisfy eventual accounting orders, while also allowing payment of undisputed sums in the interim.
Legislation Referenced
- (Not specified in the provided extract.)
Cases Cited
- Cheong Soh Chin v Eng Chiet Shoong [2019] 4 SLR 714
- UVJ v UVH [2020] 2 SLR 336
- Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2005] SGCA 4
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCF 65 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.