Chiang Shirley v Chiang Dong Pheng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 98
• Plaintiff Counsel: Plaintiff in person
• Docket Number: Suit No 524 of 2011
• Date: 10 April 2015
• Hearing Date: 27 November 2013,02 August 2013,03 April 2014,01 April 2014,25 July 2013,19 July 2013,02 April 2014,30 July 2013,18 July 2013,29 November 2013,31 July 2013,01 August 2013,26 November 2013,26 July 2013,17 July 2014,28 November 2013,24 July 2013
• Subject Matter: Probate and Administration,acts before grant,executors,appointment to office
• Published date: 16 April 2015
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 98
• Defendant Counsel: Ernest Balasubramaniam and Jispal Singh s/o Harban Singh (UniLegal LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2015

Judith Prakash J: Introduction

In this involved and strenuously fought out matter, a sister is challenging her brother’s right and suitability to be the executor and trustee of their mother’s estate. As this is a family dispute, the sad fact is that it covers years of disagreement, hurt feelings and actions taken by one or another sibling in respect of their parents and each other which have engendered deep-felt animosity. Thus, to decide the issues in the case, there would have to be a rather thorough exploration of family history and issues of the kind that most people prefer to keep securely locked away from public view.

This action concerns the estate (“the Estate”) of Mrs Chiang Chia Liang nee Ho Fan Ching Florence (“Mdm Ho”). Mdm Ho and her husband, the late Mr Chiang Chia Liang (“Mr Chiang”) had three children. The first child, a daughter, Dr Currie Chiang (“Dr Chiang”) is an ophthalmologist by profession. The second child, another daughter and a trained accountant, is Shirley Chiang, the plaintiff in this action. The youngest child and only son is Chiang Dong Pheng, the defendant in this action.

Under Mdm Ho’s will, the defendant was appointed to be the executor of the will and trustee of the Estate. The plaintiff contends that the defendant is unfit to be executor and would like the court to remove him and appoint her as executrix in his place.

Background General details about the Chiang family

Mr Chiang was an engineer from Taiwan who became a successful businessman with companies in the chemical business in Singapore and Malaysia. Mdm Ho and his children were officers of these companies at various times. As Mr Chiang grew older and played less part in the business, the defendant took over his role. He has worked for the family company, Standard Chemical Corporation Pte Ltd (“SCC”), for over 30 years and has been its managing director since 1988. The defendant is also the managing director of the family’s property company, Chiang Properties Pte Ltd (“CPPL”).

Mdm Ho was a housewife and mother. She did not run any of the Chiang family companies but she managed the family’s finances and acquired various properties for the family. She looked out for opportunities to invest and increase the wealth of the family. She was a very capable woman and managed almost all the family’s investment properties, keeping them tenanted and collecting rental.

Sometime in the 1980s, Mr Chiang, while remaining married to Mdm Ho, moved out of the family residence and set up a new home with his mistress, one Ms Wen Jen Jiao (“Ms Wen”). A son was born out of this relationship. Mr Chiang bought two apartments in Singapore in the name of Ms Wen and resided in one of these with her and their son. According to the defendant, Mdm Ho, although understandably very upset, accepted the situation and concentrated thereafter on protecting the family wealth by making sure all money and other assets were kept out of Mr Chiang’s reach for fear that he might otherwise be pressured into transferring the same to Ms Wen.

Between them, Mr Chiang and Mdm Ho owned eight houses and apartments in Singapore. They are the following: Properties in the joint names of Mr Chiang and Mdm Ho 5 Harlyn Road (“5 Harlyn”); 68 Oriole Crescent (“68 Oriole”); 70 Oriole Crescent (“70 Oriole”); and 72 Oriole Crescent (“72 Oriole”). Properties in the sole name of Mr Chiang 33 Merryn Road (“33 Merryn”); and 17C Dublin Road (“17C Dublin”); Properties in the sole name of Mdm Ho 17B Dublin Road; and 151 Cavenagh Road, #08-165 (“151 Cavenagh”). The Chiang family home was 5 Harlyn. Mdm Ho remained there after Mr Chiang moved out. The other properties were bought as investments and, accordingly, were kept tenanted as much as possible.

Events from 1998 to 2009

In 1998, Mr Chiang had a terrible fall. Thereafter, his health deteriorated. Sometime in 2002, Mr Chiang moved to live with the defendant in the latter’s home at 27 Merryn Road. At that time the plaintiff lived next door at 27A Merryn Road.

In March 2002, Mdm Ho, the defendant and Dr Chiang made an application (“OS 936”) under the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap 178, 1985 Rev Ed) for an order in respect of the person and estate of Mr Chiang. Medical evidence was produced that Mr Chiang was suffering from dementia and did not understand what was happening around him and was not able to look after himself and his affairs. The defendant initially objected to the application but subsequently wanted to become a member of the Committee. On 14 August 2002, an order was made in OS 936 appointing Mdm Ho and all her children to be the committee of the person and estate of Mr Chiang (“the Committee”). The order specifically empowered the Committee to do the following: To operate Mr Chiang’s current account No 01-4xxx with Overseas Union Bank; To execute, on behalf of and in the name of Mr Chiang, certain documents which he had to sign to apply for replacement share certificates in his name; To execute, on behalf of Mr Chiang, all documents relating to utilisation of his CPF savings; and Generally, to manage his personal and real property.

Mr Chiang died on 26 June 2009. By his will, which he had made in June 1994, Mr Chiang made the following appointments and gifts: He appointed Ms Ong Chai Hong (“Ms Ong”), a former employee of SCC, to be the executrix and trustee of his will. He bequeathed his shares in SCC to his wife and children as follows: 50 shares to Mdm Ho; 700 shares to the defendant; 2,140 shares to Dr Chiang; and 2,140 shares to the plaintiff. In respect of his real properties, he made the following specific gifts: 17C Dublin was given to Mdm Ho; and 33 Merryn was given to Ms Wen. Finally, he gave all his other real and personal property to Mdm Ho and his three children in equal shares.

Mdm Ho died some two months later on 18 August 2009. By her will made on 27 May 2004, she made the following appointments and bequests: She appointed the defendant to be the sole executor and trustee of her will. She gave her children the following houses: To the defendant, 5 Harlyn and 70 Oriole; To Dr Chiang, 72 Oriole; and To the plaintiff, 68 Oriole. Each of these gifts was expressed to be “of all my interest … absolutely”. She gave all her other property to her trustee to call in and sell and convert into money and thereafter to apply the proceeds in the following manner and priority: To pay all her debts and funeral expenses; To pay “all outstanding loans secured by” 70 Oriole and 72 Oriole; and To divide and distribute the residue after the aforesaid payments equally among her three children.

A number of events took place after Mdm Ho’s death in which the plaintiff and either one or both of her siblings were involved which led to an intensification of the strained relationship between the plaintiff and her siblings. I will deal with these when I discuss the issues in the case in more detail. In the meantime, I turn to the various legal proceedings and applications that the parties have been involved in prior to this litigation.

Initial actions

No steps were taken by the defendant in the months following Mdm Ho’s death to apply for probate of her will. The plaintiff was not happy with this inaction. On 6 April 2010 and 2 July 2010, her solicitors wrote to the defendant’s solicitors for information relating to the Estate and the status of the probate proceedings. No reply having been received to either letter, on 15 July 2010, the plaintiff gave the defendant notice that if he did not commence probate proceedings within 14 days she was going to make an application to court. There was no response to this letter either.

In early September 2010, the plaintiff filed caveats against the grant of probate in the Estate in both the Supreme Court and the Subordinate Courts. Subsequently, on 27 September 2010, she filed a Citation to Accept or Refuse Grant of Probate (“the Citation”). The Citation was served on the defendant personally.

She followed this up by starting Originating Summons No 1088 of 2010 on 21 October 2010 (“OS 1088”). This application was for an order that the defendant produce the will of Mdm Ho and deposit the same in the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court. In the affidavit supporting the application, the plaintiff complained that the defendant had done nothing in the 14 months since Mdm Ho’s death. He had not entered an appearance to the Citation and had not taken probate action. The plaintiff stated that she had been advised that the defendant was deemed to have renounced his right to probate under s 4 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) (“the Probate Act”) and that she was therefore entitled to apply for a grant of Letters of Administration with Will Annexed under s 13 of the Probate Act. For this purpose she wanted the will to be produced and deposited in the Civil Registry of the Supreme Court.

On 11 November 2010, the defendant filed Probate No 309 of 2010 (“P 309”) in the Supreme Court. This was his application for probate to be granted to him in respect of Mdm Ho’s will. Some two weeks later, he filed an appearance to contest the plaintiff’s Citation proceedings and also filed a warning for the removal of the caveats lodged by the plaintiff.

On 18 January 2011, the plaintiff withdrew OS 1088 and was ordered to pay costs to the defendant. However, on 15 April 2011, the plaintiff filed an application in P 309 seeking an order that she be jointly appointed with the defendant as the personal representative and trustee of the Estate. The application was not successful. Instead, on 28 June 2011, the plaintiff was directed that if she wanted to proceed with her quest to join or replace the defendant as trustee of the Estate, she would have to issue a Citation against the defendant within four weeks and thereafter would have to commence a...