Chan Chin Cheung v Chan Fatt Cheung and Others
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 11 December 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 62 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Sarbit Singh Chopra and Cheryl Monterio (Lim & Lim) |
Published date | 15 December 2009 |
Subject Matter | Stay of proceedings,Civil Procedure |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Defendant Counsel | Lim Shack Keong and Loo Sai Fung (Drew & Napier LLC) |
11 December 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Chao Hick Tin JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction
2 We turn now to set out the facts leading to these proceedings.
The facts
(a) [The appellant’s] 2 alleged sons claimed to become “Beneficiaries of [the estate of Chan Wing] as well as for inheritance” – Shows greed, personal gain & ulterior motive. Both not qualified to be Beneficiaries.
(b) [The plaintiff’s] mental instability is best defined in the Oxford Dictionary as, quote:-
1 “paranoia”: – mental derangement with delusions of grandeur, persecution, etc, abnormal tendency to suspect & mistrust of others.
2 “schizophrenia” – mental disorder marked by disconnection between intellect, emotions etc & actions.
(c) It is to be noted that Suit S-22-799-2003 [second Malaysian suit] and Suit S1-24-1252-2005 [third Malaysian suit] are very similar in nature. Both had petitioned the Court to remove “serving Trustees” & to appoint [the appellant] or “his 2 alleged sons” to replace the removed Trustees.
(d) [The appellant] is both dishonest & untruthful.
(e) [The appellant] is most unsuitable to serve as a trustee of the [estate]. He had misappropriated money from both of our family companies; Chan Wing Holdings “CWH” in 1973 & from Happy Homes “HH” in 1974. [The appellant] only returned the money misappropriated from [the estate] in 1975 despite constant demands from Members of the Companies. Despite all demands, the money taken from HH was returned after he was sued in High Court, commercial Division in Suit C8 of 1983. Currently, [the appellant] is also sued for a debt, money allegedly owing by him to his niece in case S3-22-1124-2004.
The list of perjuries committed [the appellant] alone speaks volumes on his character and suitability to be a trustee.
(f) [The appellant] is malicious, vindictive & and is full of hatred.
(g) [The appellant] is consumed by greed, self interest, conflict of interest & contempt for all members of the family.
(h) [The appellant] contemptuously sponsored his 2 alleged sons to become beneficiaries of the [estate] & claimed inheritance knowing that they are not qualified to claim as such. When rebuffed, [the appellant] demands a DNA test for all grandsons & threatens. To take revenge, he filed 3 High Court Cases (“grand schemes”) in anger & in rapid succession.
(i) [The appellant] is an unreliable witness and his word is worthless.
It should be noted that none of the words complained of by the appellant appear to concern his conduct in Singapore.
To continue reading
Request your trial