AEL and others v Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC and another
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 02 July 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 129 |
Subject Matter | Causation,Duty of care,Negligence,Tort |
Published date | 10 July 2014 |
Year | 2014 |
Docket Number | Suit No 822 of 2011/E |
Citation | [2014] SGHC 129 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Defendant Counsel | Chandra Mohan Rethnam and Mrinalini Singh (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Plaintiff Counsel | Andrew Ho Yew Cheng (Engelin Teh Practice LLC) |
Hearing Date | 15 January 2014,16 January 2014,17 January 2014,23 January 2014,22 January 2014,29 January 2014,28 January 2014,21 January 2014,16 April 2014 |
The late [X] (“the Testator”) was an Indonesian businessman who had made a will (“the New Will”) for the distribution of his assets in Singapore. The New Will was made with the legal assistance of the second defendant (“Cheo”), a solicitor of the first defendant firm, and it was intended to replace an earlier will (“the Old Will”) which the Testator had made jointly with his wife who predeceased him. However, the New Will was later discovered to be defective as it had been executed in the presence of only one witness, hence failing to comply with s 6(2) of the Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed). This discovery was made only after the death of the Testator when an application for probate was rejected. In the event, letters of administration were applied for and granted and the Testator’s estate was, accordingly, distributed under the Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed) (“ISA”).
The 1st to 3rd plaintiffs are three of the Testator’s six children. The 4th to 18th plaintiffs are the Testator’s 15 grandchildren. They are, collectively, the disappointed beneficiaries under the New Will which they claim was rendered defective because of Cheo’s negligence in properly supervising its execution. Accordingly, they bring this action in tort to claim, primarily, for damages equivalent to the difference in amount which they would have received under the terms of the New Will and that which they actually did receive under intestacy. Additionally, the plaintiffs also claim for the reimbursement of expenses which they paid to Indonesian solicitors in connection with their application for letters of administration.
After careful consideration, I am allowing the plaintiffs’ claim. I now proceed to set out the facts in greater detail before providing the reasons for my decision.
Background facts The Testator and his family The Testator was an Indonesian businessman who married one [Y] in 1954.
Together with his wife, the Testator has four sons—[S], [M], [D] and AEN—and two daughters—AEL and AEM. Of these six children, only three are plaintiffs in this suit, namely, AEL, AEM and AEN. They are named, in that order, as the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs. While the Testator’s three other children are not parties to this suit, I should mention here that they also have some involvement in these proceedings. All three of them have sworn a joint affidavit
All the Testator’s children are adults in their fifties or sixties
All the Testator’s children also have children of their own (
The Testator executed the Old Will jointly with his wife in Singapore on 16 November 1990 to provide for the distribution of their assets in Singapore.
Some 14 years after the Old Will was made, the Testator’s wife passed away on 29 January 2005.
Cheo’s evidence is that, sometime in April 2006, the Testator made first contact with him via a telephone call.
At the meeting in Citibank’s office, the Testator, who was accompanied by AEL, told Cheo that the New Will was to provide for the distribution of his assets in Singapore which consisted solely of monies in accounts with Citibank. Importantly, it is common ground between the parties that the Testator had also given a notarised copy of the Old Will
Subsequently, on 13 April 2006, Cheo sent the Testator and AEL a draft copy of the New Will by facsimile and email respectively.
On 17 April 2006, the Testator, again accompanied by AEL, met Cheo at Citibank’s office as arranged. It is undisputed that the execution of the New Will was then
I pause at this juncture to mention two points regarding the contents of the New Will. First, the New Will, as drafted by Cheo, appointed both AEL and AEN as the “sole [t]rustees” of the Testator’s estate. No executors have been explicitly appointed as such. Second, the New Will provides that, upon the Testator’s death, his estate is to be distributed in the following manner: 20% each to the 1st to 3rd plaintiffs, 10% to [S], and 30% to be distributed equally among all his grandchildren.
| | | |||||
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | |
After the New Will was executed, Cheo did not have any further direct communication with the Testator.
The Testator died some four years later on 24 November 2010
To continue reading
Request your trial