A probate or estate dispute can leave a deceased person’s estate in a state of uncertainty for months or even years. Where family members or beneficiaries are unable to agree on the validity of a will, the appointment of an executor or administrator, or the proper administration of the estate, the estate may effectively be frozen until the dispute is resolved.
This raises an important practical question: who manages and preserves the estate while probate or estate litigation is ongoing?
In appropriate cases, the court may appoint an Administrator Pendente Lite (APL) to temporarily manage the estate until the dispute is resolved. An APL serves as an interim administrator whose primary role is to safeguard the estate, prevent assets from being wasted, and ensure that necessary administrative matters are attended to.
However, the appointment of an APL is not automatic. It may also involve substantial professional fees and administrative costs, which are usually paid out of the estate. For this reason, the court will consider whether the appointment is truly necessary and proportionate in the circumstances.
This article explains when an APL may be appointed in Malaysia, when the court may refuse such an appointment, and what parties should consider before applying for one.
1. Delays to Estate Administration
When a person passes away, their estate is usually administered by an executor named in the will or by an administrator appointed by the court. The executor or administrator is responsible for collecting the deceased’s assets, paying debts and liabilities, and eventually distributing the estate to the beneficiaries.
However, where a probate or estate dispute arises, the appointment of an executor or administrator may be delayed. Until the dispute is resolved, there may be no effective person with authority to manage the estate.
This can create serious practical difficulties, especially where the estate includes real property, rental income, company shares, business interests, bank accounts, debts, taxes, or other assets that require active management.
In such situations, an APL may be appointed to preserve the estate pending the outcome of the dispute.
2. Common Probate and Estate Disputes
Probate and estate disputes may arise in many different circumstances. Some disputes concern the validity of the deceased’s will, while others concern who should administer the estate or how the estate assets should be managed.
Common disputes include:
- disputes over whether the will is valid;
- allegations that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity when making the will;
- allegations of undue influence, fraud, forgery, or suspicious circumstances surrounding the will;
- disputes over the appointment or removal of an executor;
- disputes over who should be appointed as administrator where there is no will;
- competing applications for the grant of probate or letters of administration;
- disputes between beneficiaries over estate assets;
- disputes involving jointly owned properties, family businesses, or company shares;
- allegations that a person is dealing with estate assets without proper authority;
- refusal by a person in possession of estate assets to account for them;
- claims by creditors, dependants, or other interested parties; and
- severe family conflict, which prevents the estate from being administered smoothly.
Where these disputes remain unresolved, the estate may be left without an effective person in control. This is particularly problematic where there are assets that require active management or when there is a risk that the estate may be wasted, dissipated, or mismanaged.
3. What Happens If No One Manages the Estate During the Dispute?
A delay in appointing an executor or administrator can have serious consequences.
Estate assets may be left idle, unmanaged, or exposed to loss. Rental properties may remain vacant, tenants may stop paying rent, maintenance charges may go unpaid, and properties may deteriorate. Bank accounts may remain frozen. Debts, taxes, quit rent, assessment, insurance premiums, and loan repayments may remain outstanding.
Where the estate includes a business, the delay may be even more damaging. Business operations may be disrupted, employees may be left without direction, contracts may not be performed, and the value of the business may decline.
In some cases, one party may attempt to take control of estate assets without authority. This may lead to further disputes, allegations of mismanagement, or claims that estate assets have been dissipated.
The appointment of an APL is intended to address this temporary gap. The APL’s role is not to determine who is ultimately entitled to the estate. Rather, the APL preserves and manages the estate until the court resolves the probate or estate dispute.
4. What Is an Administrator Pendente Lite?
Under section 19 of the Probate and Administration Act 1959 (PAA 1959), the court may appoint an administrator pending the determination of a probate action. This administrator is commonly referred to as an Administrator Pendente Lite, or APL.
An APL is a temporary administrator appointed by the court to manage and preserve the estate while litigation is ongoing. The appointment is interim and continues only until the dispute is resolved or until a further order of the court.
An APL is generally granted all the rights and powers of a general administrator, subject to one important limitation: the APL cannot distribute the estate to the beneficiaries.
This is because the court has not yet determined who is entitled to administer the estate or benefit from it. The APL’s role is therefore conservatory. The APL may collect estate assets, recover debts or property belonging to the estate, manage estate property, receive income, pay necessary expenses, and take steps to preserve the estate.
The APL acts under the court’s control and direction. Once the probate dispute is resolved and the final judgment is delivered, the APL’s role ceases, and the estate is handed over to the rightful executor or administrator.
5. When Will the Court Appoint an APL?
The appointment of an APL is not automatic merely because there is a probate or estate dispute.
The courts have consistently held that there must be a proper basis for the appointment. The applicant must show that there is “some proper object, some necessity” for the appointment of an APL.
This principle was recognised in Tebin Mostapa v Hulba-Danyal Balia & Anor [2020] 4 MLJ 721 and Tan Boon Thien & Anor v Tan Poh Lee & Ors (No 2) [2021] 1 CLJ 391, where the courts emphasised that the appointment must be justified by necessity.
In practice, this requirement may be satisfied where the estate involves ongoing commercial operations, disputed property interests, or complex financial obligations that cannot be left unmanaged during a prolonged dispute.
The court is more likely to appoint an APL where:
- the estate requires active management;
- there is a risk that assets may be wasted or dissipated;
- there is serious conflict between family members or beneficiaries;
- no party can fairly or effectively manage the estate pending the dispute;
- the estate includes ongoing businesses or income-generating assets;
- there are debts, taxes, liabilities, or obligations that must be attended to;
- the estate assets are complex or substantial; or
- the appointment of a neutral party is necessary to preserve the estate.
The court will consider the nature of the estate, the extent of the dispute, the risk to the assets, the proposed APL’s suitability, and the cost of the appointment.
6. Examples of Situations Where an APL May Be Necessary
Malaysian courts have appointed APLs in situations involving severe family conflict, ongoing litigation, disputed assets, or the need to ensure continuity in managing the estate.
In Tan Boon Thien & Anor v Tan Poh Lee & Ors (No 2) [2021] 1 CLJ 391, the Court of Appeal upheld the appointment of an APL due to extreme animosity and ongoing litigation between siblings. The conflict made it necessary for a neutral party to be appointed to preserve both disputed and undisputed assets.
In Pushpervelli a/p Ramasamy v Siva Prakash a/l Ramasamy [2022] MLJU 3649, the High Court appointed a party to the proceedings as the APL. The court found that he was honest and capable, and that he had previously managed the estate effectively.
In re Griffin. Griffin v Ackroyd [1925] P 38, the testator’s widow was appointed as APL to ensure the continuity of an ongoing business. This illustrates that where the estate includes a business that requires active management, the appointment of an APL may be necessary to prevent disruption or loss.
In Re Chia Eng Say Decd. Chia Kim Lian & Anor v Tan Ah Nee & Ors [1942] 4 MC 305, the High Court recognised that a family member may be appointed as APL, particularly where the person is willing to act without remuneration. This may help preserve the value of the estate by avoiding unnecessary professional fees.
These cases show that the court’s focus is not merely on the existence of a dispute. The court will ask whether the estate genuinely requires interim management and whether the proposed appointment will serve a useful and necessary purpose.
7. When Will the Court Refuse to Appoint an APL?
The court may refuse to appoint an APL where there is no real necessity, where the estate is already secure, where the costs are disproportionate, or where the proposed appointee lacks neutrality and independence.
An APL will generally not be appointed simply because parties are in conflict. There must be a practical need for someone to preserve or manage the estate pending the resolution of the dispute.
For example, if the estate has already been liquidated and the proceeds are safely held in a trust account, the court may find no practical need to appoint an APL. In such circumstances, appointing a professional APL may only result in unnecessary costs and delay.
Similarly, for a straightforward or passive estate, appointing a professional third-party APL may introduce unnecessary delay and substantially reduce the beneficiaries’ eventual inheritance without serving any meaningful protective purpose.
In Thong Kim Yang @ Thong Kum Ying v Thong Teck Yoong @ Thong Tuck Weng & Ors [2025] MLJU 2323, the High Court dismissed an application for the appointment of an APL where the estate had already been fully liquidated, and the funds were held in a trust account. The proposed APL had quoted a mobilisation fee of RM12,500 and a monthly retainer of RM2,000. The court held that these costs were excessive and disproportionate, and noted that the total fees could amount to approximately RM88,000. The court found that there was no justification for depleting the estate’s resources in this manner.
The court may also refuse to appoint a person who is not sufficiently neutral.
In Kee Lee Peow v Kee Jek Hee & Ors [2025] MLJU 533, the High Court held that a party actively contesting the estate was not a suitable person to be appointed as APL. The court emphasised the importance of neutrality and independence.
These cases demonstrate that appointing an APL is a serious step. The court will not appoint an APL if the appointment would serve no practical purpose, impose unnecessary costs, or place the estate under the control of a person who lacks independence.
8. Who Pays the Costs of an APL?
The costs of an APL are generally borne by the estate.
These costs may include the APL’s remuneration, out-of-pocket expenses, professional fees, administrative costs, and disbursements. Where a professional third-party APL is appointed, the fees may include a mobilisation fee and a monthly retainer.
Under Order 72 rule 20 of the Rules of Court 2012, an APL is required to produce verified accounts of all money received and paid. Where remuneration has not been fixed by the court, the accounts may be referred to the Registrar for taxation and assessment.
Because these costs are usually paid from the estate, they will reduce the value ultimately available for distribution to the beneficiaries. This is why the court will consider whether the appointment is proportionate and whether the expected benefit justifies the cost.
In appropriate cases, parties may consider proposing a family member or another suitable person to act as APL, especially if that person is willing to serve without remuneration. This may be appropriate where the person is capable, honest, and sufficiently independent.
However, the court may also consider making consequential orders on costs. In Gan Boon Hooi & 4 Ors v Gan Bee Ling (Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No. B-02(IM)(NCVC)-106-01/2025), the Court of Appeal held that where a party insists on the appointment of an APL, the court may grant consequential relief requiring that party to reimburse the estate for the APL’s costs if that party ultimately fails in the main probate claim.
This is important because an APL application may have significant financial consequences. A party applying for an APL should therefore carefully consider whether the appointment is necessary and whether the costs can be justified.
9. Should You Apply for an APL?
An application for an APL should not be treated as a routine step in every probate or estate dispute.
While an APL can be useful when estate assets require active management or protection, the appointment may also increase costs and reduce the estate’s value. The court will therefore consider whether there is a real necessity for the appointment and whether it is proportionate in the circumstances.
Where an external professional is proposed as APL, parties should also consider whether the proposed mobilisation fee, monthly retainer, and expected overall cost are proportionate to the estate’s value and needs.
Before applying for an APL, parties should consider:
- whether the estate assets are at risk;
- whether the assets require active management;
- whether there is an ongoing business or income-generating property;
- whether there are disputed property interests requiring interim management;
- whether estate liabilities, taxes, or expenses need to be attended to;
- whether any party is dealing with estate assets without authority;
- whether the estate is already secure;
- whether a professional APL is necessary;
- whether a suitable family member or other person can act without remuneration;
- whether the cost of the appointment is justified.
In some cases, applying for an APL may be necessary to prevent loss to the estate. In other cases, it may be more appropriate to oppose the appointment of an APL, especially where the estate is already secure, or the proposed appointment would result in unnecessary costs.
The appropriate strategy will depend on the nature of the dispute, the type of assets involved, the urgency of the situation, and the financial impact on the estate.
10. Conclusion
Probate and estate disputes can leave an estate in uncertainty, especially when family members or beneficiaries cannot agree on who should manage the estate. In suitable cases, an Administrator Pendente Lite can provide temporary protection by preserving the estate until the dispute is resolved.
However, an APL is not appropriate in every case. The court will consider whether there is a real necessity for the appointment, whether the estate assets are at risk, whether the proposed administrator is suitable and neutral, and whether the costs are proportionate.
Parties should therefore carefully assess whether an APL application is necessary, commercially sensible, and in the best interests of the estate. The appointment of an APL can be an effective protective measure, but it can also deplete the estate if invoked unnecessarily.
If you are involved in a probate dispute, a contested will, an executor dispute, an administrator dispute, or an estate administration dispute in Malaysia, it is important to seek legal advice early. The right strategy may involve applying for an APL, opposing an unnecessary appointment, or proposing a more cost-effective way to preserve the estate.
MWKA advises clients on probate disputes, estate administration, contested wills, executor disputes, administrator disputes, and applications involving Administrators Pendente Lite. Contact us for a consultation on how best to protect the estate and your interests.
11. Frequently Asked Questions
What is an Administrator Pendente Lite?
An Administrator Pendente Lite, or APL, is a temporary administrator appointed by the court to manage and preserve a deceased person’s estate while a probate or estate dispute is ongoing.
The APL’s role is interim and conservatory. The APL may collect, recover, protect, and manage estate assets, but does not distribute the estate to beneficiaries.
When is an APL appointed in Malaysia?
An APL may be appointed where there is a real necessity to preserve or manage the estate pending the resolution of a probate dispute.
This may include situations involving serious family conflict, unmanaged assets, ongoing businesses, rental properties, disputed property interests, complex financial obligations, estate liabilities, or a risk of estate assets being wasted or dissipated.
Can an APL distribute the estate to beneficiaries?
No. An APL generally cannot distribute the estate to beneficiaries.
The APL’s role is to preserve and manage the estate until the court determines who is entitled to administer or benefit from the estate. Distribution should occur only after the dispute is resolved and the proper executor or administrator is in place.
Who pays the APL’s fees?
The APL’s fees, expenses, and disbursements are generally paid out of the estate.
This means that the cost of appointing an APL may reduce the value of the estate available for distribution to the beneficiaries. For this reason, the court will consider whether the appointment is necessary and proportionate.
Can a family member be appointed as APL?
Yes. A family member may be appointed as APL if the court considers the person suitable, capable, honest, and sufficiently independent.
In some cases, appointing a family member willing to act without remuneration may help preserve the estate’s value by avoiding unnecessary professional fees.
Will the court always appoint an APL in a probate dispute?
No. The court will not appoint an APL merely because there is a probate dispute.
The applicant must show that there is a proper object or necessity for the appointment. If the estate is already secure, if there is no real risk to the assets, or if the proposed appointment would cause unnecessary costs, the court may refuse the application.
What happens if the estate is already held in a trust account?
If the estate has already been liquidated and the funds are securely held in a trust account, the court may find no need to appoint an APL.
In such circumstances, appointing an APL may not serve any practical purpose and may only increase costs.
Should I apply for an APL in a probate dispute?
This depends on the circumstances. You should consider applying for an APL if estate assets are at risk, if no one is effectively managing the estate, or if urgent steps are required to preserve assets. However, if the estate is already secure or if the costs of an APL are disproportionate, an application may not be appropriate.
Legal advice should be obtained before applying for or opposing the appointment of an APL.
By Raymond Mah, Aqil Nasharuddin and Ray Chen
Link to original post
