Mohamed Ismail bin Ibrahim and Another v Mohammad Taha bin Ibrahim (No 2)

MPH Rubin J:

[6] As stated in Ford and Lee’s Principles of the Law of Trusts (supra [4]) at para [14040], p 26:

Although in the case concluded, the defendant, being the executor, could have applied to the Court for an indemnity, he did not do so.

[7] It is provided under O 59 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed):

In the case at hand, no doubt, the defendant mounted a defence not merely as an administrator but also as an interested party. He was seemingly not a detached party. Nonetheless, the dispute at hand was also not his making and the advice given to him before the commencement of litigation left him with little choice but to contest the plaintiffs’ claim. Conversely, since the plaintiffs also had a legitimate and valid grievance on their side, it became a contest between one perceived right against another perceived right. In the circumstances, an even-handed approach seemed appropriate.