Insurance Law

• Author: LEE Kiat Seng LLB (Hons) (National University of Singapore), LLM (Maritime Law) (London); Advocate and Solicitor (Singapore); Adjunct Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, National University of Singapore.
• Date: 01 December 2012
• Citation: (2012) 13 SAL Ann Rev 357
• Published date: 01 December 2012

Section 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act

18.1 In Lim Lina v Estate of Quick Cheng Gee[2012] 1 SLR 905, one of the questions which seems to have vexed insurers and their counsel has been when s 73 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) (‘CLPA’) attaches so that there is a statutory trust imposed on the moneys payable under the relevant insurance policy. Section 73(1) of the CLPA reads:

A policy of assurance effected by any man on his own life and expressed, before the date of commencement of section 10 of the Insurance (Amendment) Act 2009, to be for the benefit of his wife or of his children or of his wife and children or any of them, or by any woman on her own life and expressed, before the date of commencement of section 10 of the Insurance (Amendment) Act 2009, to be for the benefit of her husband or of her children or of her husband and children or any of them, shall create a trust in favour of the objects therein named, and the moneys payable under such policy shall not, so long as any object of the trust remains unperformed, form part of the estate of the insured or be subject to his or her debts. [emphasis added]

18.2 The facts of the case are very simple: during the course of his marriage, the deceased had taken out three insurance policies on his own life, naming his wife as the sole beneficiary thereof. On the application forms for each of the policies, the deceased had named his wife under ‘Name of Beneficiary’ and her relationship with the deceased was clearly indicated in the same forms.

18.3 The deceased had died intestate and pursuant to the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed), both the deceased's wife and the deceased's mother were each entitled to half of the deceased's estate. Despite the indication in the proposal forms of the relationship of the named beneficiary to the deceased, the moneys were paid into the deceased's estate bank account, for which both the deceased's wife and the deceased's mother were joint signatories. In light of the refusal of the deceased's mother to approve the release of the proceeds from the said account, the deceased's wife made an application for a declaration that she was entitled to the proceeds from the policies and the same should be released to her solely.

18.4 The decision for Lee Seiu Kin J was an easy one: it has been well established since the case of Eng Li Cheng Dolly v Lim Yeo Hua[1995] 2 SLR(R) 577 that:

(a) There is no fixed...