ADP and others v ADT and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 107
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 212 of 2014
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 11 June 2014
• Hearing Date: 26 May 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edwin Tong, Fong Shi-Ting Fay and Li Fang Yi (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Alvin Yeo SC, Monica Chong and Chan Xiaowei (WongPartnership LLP),Sarjit Singh SC, Terence Seah and Sarah Yazid (Shook Lin & Bok LLP)
• Subject Matter: Succession and Wills,Determination of questions, etc without administration
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 107

Choo Han Teck J:

The plaintiffs in this Originating Summons are the executors and trustees of the estate of a very wealthy man. The three defendants are sisters and are some of the beneficiaries to the estate. In 2011, the second and third defendants commenced proceedings under the Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed) for a declaration that the first defendant was unable, by reason of her mental incapacity, to make decisions in respect of her own affairs (“the MCA Suit”).

On 11 December 2012, the district judge granted the second and third defendants’ (as plaintiffs in that suit) application and, further, appointed the second and third defendants as deputies of the first defendant. The first defendant appealed to the High Court and on 1 October 2013, Lai Siu Chiu J allowed her appeal and set aside the district judge’s orders.

On 15 November 2012, before the district judge’s decision, the executors had resolved to make an interim distribution of £39,341,281 to the beneficiaries according to their share. There was no dispute as to the shareholding or that the first defendant was entitled to her share. However, as the proceedings before the district judge were still underway, the executors decided to withhold payment of the first defendant’s share for that distribution. All the other beneficiaries had been paid their respective shares. After the district judge’s decision, on 11 January 2013, the executors wrote to the solicitors for the second and third defendants, seeking to effect payment of the first defendant’s share to them (as appointed deputies). They received no response. On 30 January 2013, the first defendant’s solicitors notified the executors that the first defendant was appealing against the district judge’s decision. As such, the executors made the decision to hold on to the first defendant’s share for the time being. After the appeal was allowed by Lai J, the first defendant’s solicitors wrote to the executors on 12 November 2013, seeking receipt of her share of the distribution. On the very next day, solicitors for the second and third defendants wrote to the executors as well, informing them they had filed an application for leave to appeal, and in the letter cautioned that the executors ought to “take all necessary steps and precautions to independently verify any instructions coming from [the first defendant]”. The executors continued to withhold payment of the first defendant’s share.

The second and third defendants applied for, and were granted, leave by the High Court on 27 December 2013 to appeal against Lai J’s decision to the Court of Appeal. Judicial Commissioner George Wei who heard the application also heard the second and third defendants’ application for a stay of the order of Lai J. Although Wei JC allowed leave to appeal, he declined the stay. The effect of this was that the order of the district judge was set aside and the second and third defendants were no longer appointed deputies of the first defendant. The executors were not party to any of these proceedings. However, they were kept informed by either party through their solicitors. In January 2014, after Wei JC’s decision, letters were exchanged between the three...