Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 14 October 2009
• Neutral Citation: [2009] SGHC 229
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2009
• Citation: [2009] SGHC 229
• Plaintiff Counsel: Molly Lim SC and June Hong (Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Giam Chin Toon SC and Wong Hur Yuin (Wee Swee Teow & Co),Chew Kei-Jin and Guy Ghazali (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
• Subject Matter: Succession and Wills
• Published date: 23 October 2009

14 October 2009 Judgment reserved.

Lai Siu Chiu J:

Introduction

1 This was a most unfortunate case where the unequal affections of a mother Madam Goh Hun Keong (“Mdm Goh”) for her six children resulted in her second daughter Chee Mu Lin Muriel (“the plaintiff”) suing her youngest and favourite child Chee Ka Lin Caroline (“the defendant”) over the validity of one of two Wills which Mdm Goh had executed during her lifetime.

2 Alexander Chee (“the First Intervener”) and Maureen Chee (“the Second Intervener”) are a son and a daughter respectively of Mdm Goh. (Henceforth the First and Second Interveners are referred to collectively as “the Interveners” or where appropriate as “Alexander” and “Maureen” respectively). Besides the plaintiff and the defendant, the Interveners have two other siblings viz Chee Ping Swee (“Ping Swee”) and Chee Ping Kong (“Ping Kong”). Ping Swee lives in Singapore while Ping Kong, like the Interveners, resides in the United States of America (“the USA”).

3 The dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant centred on a Will executed by Mdm Goh on 21 August 1996 (“the 1996 Will”). The bone of contention arose from the fact that an earlier Will had been made by Mdm Goh on 16 March 1989 (“the 1989 Will”).

4 In this action, the plaintiff sought to propound the 1996 Will, and in so doing, prayed for a declaration that the 1989 Will had been validly revoked and was therefore invalid. The defendant, on the other hand, denied the validity of the 1996 Will on various grounds and propounded the 1989 Will.

5 The Interveners supported the defendant’s case while Ping Swee sided with the plaintiff. In supporting the defendant, the Interveners acted against their own interests, as shall become clearer later in the judgment. For the time being, it suffices to say that the Interveners’ view was that the contents of the 1989 Will (as opposed to those in the 1996 Will) better reflected Mdm Goh’s wishes.

Pleadings

6 The plaintiff alleged that on or about 18 August 1996, Mdm Goh had given instructions to a lawyer (“MO”) to draft the 1996 Will. The 1996 Will was then drawn up by MO in accordance with Mdm Goh’s instructions to her.

7 The plaintiff’s case was that on or about 21 August 1996, MO, accompanied by her partner (“W”) and Dr Goh King Hua (“Dr Goh”) who is the nephew of Mdm Goh, were all present at the plaintiff’s house at 7 Greenleaf Place, Singapore (“Greenleaf Place”). The plaintiff averred that during that time, MO explained the content and purport of the 1996 Will line by line to Mdm Goh prior to its execution. Mdm Goh, in turn, read the 1996 Will by herself prior to executing it in the sight and presence of Dr Goh and the two witnesses, namely MO and W.

8 The plaintiff further alleged that Mdm Goh was a free and capable testatrix to the 1996 Will, which expressly revoked all testamentary dispositions (including the 1989 Will) previously made by her. The plaintiff therefore alleged that the 1996 Will was the true and valid last Will of Mdm Goh, as the 1989 Will had been revoked and was therefore invalid.

9 In her statement of claim, the plaintiff claimed the following:

(a)	a declaration pronouncing against the validity of the 1989 Will;
(b)	a declaration pronouncing for the force and validity of the 1996 Will;
(c)	a declaration that the 1996 Will was the true and valid last will and testament of Mdm Goh which revoked all former wills and testamentary dispositions including the 1989 Will;
(d)	that the order of court dated 26 July 2004 in Probate No 141 of 2004 granting the defendant’s Petition for Probate of the 1989 Will be set aside; and
(e)	that a Grant of Probate of the 1989 Will in Mdm Goh’s Estate should not be sealed in favour of the defendant.

10 Conversely, the defendant in her defence averred that Mdm Goh would not have executed the 1996 Will because she would have known that significant parts of the contents were factually incorrect or did not reflect her intentions. Further, the manner in which the 1996 Will was actually executed on 21 August 1996 indicated that in respect of certain aspects of the 1996 Will, the instructions of Mdm Goh were not even properly sought or not sought at all.

11 The defendant also contended that Mdm Goh did not have the mental capacity or competency to properly execute the 1996 Will.

12 The defendant added that Mdm Goh neither knew of nor approved the contents of the 1996 Will when she executed it. The defendant’s position was that there were suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the 1996 Will which would arouse the vigilance and suspicion of the court. In addition, the defendant challenged the 1996 Will on the ground that the Will was not duly executed – that when the same was executed, Mdm Goh was not of sound mind, memory and understanding and that the execution of the Will was obtained by undue influence.

13 The defendant therefore counterclaimed as follows:

(a)	that the court pronounce against the 1996 Will propounded by the plaintiff;
(b)	that the court hold the 1989 Will to be valid and
(c)	that Probate No 141 of 2004 be allowed to proceed to extraction of the Grant of Probate.

Factual Background

14 The plaintiff is a lawyer who is married to a National University of Singapore (“NUS”) law lecturer, RB (“B”). The defendant is a doctor (an ophthalmolist) who is married to another doctor, Paul Chew Tec Kuan (“Paul”).

15 Mdm Goh was born on 2 February 1921 and passed away on 9 June 2004 at the age of 83, outliving her husband, Dr Chee Siew Oon (“Dr Chee”), who breathed his last in October 1990. At the time of her death, Mdm Goh was survived by six children who in order of seniority are:

(a) Alexander;

(b) Maureen;

(c) Ping Kong;

(d) Ping Swee;

(e) the plaintiff; and

(f) the defendant.

16 Mdm Goh completed her secondary school education at Methodist Girls School and was trained as a teacher at the Teachers’ Training College. After her training, she taught English at various schools. Mdm Goh married Dr Chee in August 1945 and had seven children six of whom survived. A few years after her marriage, Mdm Goh retired from teaching and became a very successful property investor. Indeed, as at her death, Mdm Goh had amassed several properties for investment and rental purposes. Her usual conveyancing lawyer was Mr Hin Hoo Sing (“HHS”) of M/s Hin Rai & Tan.

17 As indicated earlier [5], the siblings had divided themselves into two camps. In one camp, there was the plaintiff and Ping Swee. In the other, there was the defendant and the rest of the siblings, namely the two Interveners and Ping Kong. The first camp refused to accept that the defendant was the favourite child of Mdm Goh, and insisted that Mdm Goh intended to divide her estate equally amongst the siblings. As shall become evident later, the second camp did not share the same sentiments. Indeed, the second camp maintained that the defendant was without doubt the apple of Mdm Goh’s eye and that Mdm Goh’s true wishes were reflected in the 1989 Will, not the 1996 Will.

18 The Interveners and Ping Kong had left for the USA for further studies in the 1960s-1970s and chose to settle down there. All the siblings gave evidence at the trial save for Ping Kong, who declined to return to Singapore as he had not enlisted for National Service in his formative years. Counsel for the defendant had applied to have Ping Kong’s evidence adduced via video link but the application was opposed by the plaintiff and disallowed before trial commenced in this court.

19 Much was said in court and will be said about the 1996 Will but before I turn to the same, I shall first look at the circumstances surrounding the execution of the earlier Will.

The 1989 Will

20 On 16 March 1989, about one month after Dr Chee had suffered a major stroke and became totally incapacitated thereby, Mdm Goh executed the 1989 Will which appointed the defendant as the sole executrix and trustee of her estate. The 1989 Will was drafted and witnessed by HHS and his clerk one Lim Bee Leng. In essence, the 1989 Will made the following bequests:

(a)	$150,000 to Ping Swee;
(b)	No 25 and 25C Lorong Liput to the defendant;
(c)	Nos 173, 175A and 175B Jalan Loyang Besar were to be sold and the proceeds (interest first, and then principal) to be utilised to provide for the care of Dr Chee should he outlive Mdm Goh;
(d)	After Dr Chee’s death, provision at the defendant’s sole discretion for the education of Mdm Goh’s grandchildren from any balance money left from his care and
(e)	The rest of Mdm Goh’s assets including No. 470 Holland Road (“the Property”) to be given to the defendant.

The 1989 Will gave the defendant almost Mdm Goh’s entire estate, save for Ping Swee’s receipt of $150,000 cash and some provisions for Dr Chee should he outlive Mdm Goh. The 1996 Will as will be seen below, was a complete reversal of the 1989 Will.

Events that took place after the execution of the 1989 Will

21 At the time of Dr Chee’s demise (October 1990), Ping Swee was the only sibling who was living with Mdm Goh at the Property. He subsequently moved out (in 1993) as there was friction between him and Mdm Goh (according to the defendant).

22 In 1992, the defendant and Paul left for the United Kingdom for their sub-specialty medical training; they returned in mid-1993 or thereabouts. On their return, they resumed their previous living arrangement of staying with Paul’s parents. Towards the end of 1993, the defendant and Paul started to view various apartments in the hope of finding a home of their own; they had lived with Paul’s parents for seven years. During this time, Mdm Goh was living with the plaintiff and B at Greenleaf Place, which is a stone’s throw from where the Property is located.

The 1996 Will

23 On 21 August 1996, Mdm Goh executed the 1996 Will in which Dr Goh and the plaintiff were named as executor and executrix respectively. Both were also...