AAG v Estate of AAH, deceased

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 11 February 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 33
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1136 of 2008
• Date: 11 February 2009
• Published date: 05 May 2009
• Year: 2009
• Plaintiff Counsel: John Tan Thong Young (Pereira & Tan LLC)
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 33
• Defendant Counsel: Lim Choi Ming (KhattarWong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Legitimacy,Family Law,Illegitimate child,Child,Sections 2 and 3 Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Cap 138, 1985 Rev Ed),Maintenance,Whether illegitimate child could claim maintenance under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Cap 138, 1985 Rev Ed),Effects of illegitimacy

11 February 2009 Judgment reserved

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The plaintiff in this action is seeking reasonable maintenance from the estate of the deceased for her two daughters. They were born out of wedlock and are the illegitimate children of the deceased.

2 A preliminary point to be decided was the question of whether illegitimate children are entitled to claim maintenance under the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act (Cap 138, 1985 Rev Ed) (“the Act”). Under s 3 of the Act, the court is empowered to order reasonable maintenance to be provided out of the estate of a deceased to, inter alia, “daughter who has not been married”. The interpretation provision of the Act, viz, s 2, however, is silent on whether the term “daughter”, for the purposes of the Act, includes an illegitimate daughter. The provision states:

In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires … “son” and “daughter”, respectively, include a male or female child adopted by the deceased by virtue of an order made under the provisions of any written law relating to the adoption of children for the time being in force in Singapore, Malaysia or Brunei Darussalam, and also the son or daughter of the deceased en ventre sa mere at the date of the death of the deceased.

The Act sought to introduce into Singapore the provisions of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 (UK) (Singapore Parliament, Official Reports, (21 April 1966) vol 25 at col 77). The provisions in the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 (UK) relating to the power of the court to order reasonable maintenance to be provided out of the estate of a deceased, viz, s 1, is similar to s 3 of the Act. Likewise, the terms “son” and “daughter” is defined in s 5(1) of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 (UK) in a similar manner to that which is stated in s 2 of the Act.

3 The established interpretation of the Inheritance (Family Provision) Act 1938 (UK) was that it excluded illegitimate children from making maintenance claims against the estate of a deceased. As stated in Makein v Makein [1955] 1 Ch 194 by Harman J (at 209):

Is it, then, more consonant with the object of the statute to give the words “son” or “child” an extended meaning? In my judgment it is not. I cannot think that the legislature contemplated applications by illegitimate offspring competing with the claims, whether under a will or intestacy, of the legitimate dependants. The task of the courts in those circumstances would be not only odious but impossible to carry out, for who could know what other dependants might enter the lists to make further claims to a share? It would indeed be visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children.

On the whole, then, I come to the conclusion that there is no...