Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeGeorge Wei J
Judgment Date28 November 2016
Neutral Citation[2016] SGHC 260
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Hearing Date29 July 2016,25 July 2016,26 July 2016,28 July 2016,27 July 2016,30 September 2016,22 July 2016
Docket NumberSuit No 764 of 2013
Plaintiff CounselThe plaintiffs in person
Defendant CounselNandwani Manoj Prakash and Christine Ong (Gabriel Law Corporation),Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Ganga d/o Avadiar and Foo Li Chuan Arlene (Advocatus Law LLP),The 3rd defendant in person.
Subject MatterProbate and Administration,Personal representatives,Powers and duties,Legal profession,Express and implied retainer,Equity,Fiduciary relationships,When arising,Civil procedure,Costs,Indemnity costs
Published date02 December 2016
George Wei J: Introduction

This suit arises from a long-standing dispute among a few siblings over the estates of their late parents and late brother. It was commenced by two of the seven beneficiaries of the late father’s will, who brought various claims against the executor of the will (who is himself a beneficiary) as well as against the law firm engaged to assist in the administration of the estate.

The trial was heard over six days in July 2016, with written submissions filed in September 2016. I now deliver my judgment.

Background facts The parties

The 1st Plaintiff, the 2nd Plaintiff, the 1st Defendant and the 3rd Defendant are four of six siblings in the Foo family. Together with their late mother, Yap Wee Kien (“the Late Mother”), their late brother, Foo Jee Fong (“the Late Brother”) and their sister, Foo Chin Chin, they are beneficiaries of the estate of their late father, Foo Tai Joong (“the Late Father”) in equal shares. The estate of the Late Father consists solely of a piece of landed property known as 39 Lorong Marzuki (“the Property”).

The 2nd Defendant is the law firm that was engaged to assist in the administration of the estate, under circumstances which I shall set out at [20] below.

The Foo family is no stranger to the courts. The present Suit No 764 of 2013 (“the present suit”) is part of a long-running and acrimonious dispute between the siblings over the estates of the Late Father, the Late Mother, and the Late Brother. I will shortly set out some of these proceedings relevant for the purposes of the present suit.

The Late Father passed away on 5 May 1979. In his will dated 8 May 1975, he appointed the Late Mother and the 1st Defendant as co-executors and trustees of his estate. The will provided for a trust for sale over the Property. The following shows the distribution of the Late Father’s estate according to the will, in order of seniority:

Name Capacity Share
Yap Wee Kien (deceased) Late Mother Executor and trustee 1/7
Foo Jee Fong (deceased) Late Brother 1/7
Foo Li Li 2nd Plaintiff 1/7
Foo Jee Seng 3rd Defendant 1/7
Foo Jhee Tuang 1st Defendant Sole surviving executor and trustee 1/7
Foo Chin Chin Sister, who is not a party to the present suit 1/7
Foo Jee Boo 1st Plaintiff 1/7

Probate was obtained by the Late Mother on 30 November 1979 as sole executor of the will. At this point of time, the 1st Defendant was still a minor.1 After the Late Mother passed away on 25 July 2005, the administration of the Late Father’s estate was granted to the 1st Defendant solely on 11 January 2010.2 On 21 March 2011, pursuant to an application brought by the 1st Defendant in Summons No 5672 of 2010 (brought under Originating Summons No 909 of 2010, which I will discuss later), Judith Prakash J (as she then was) declared the 1st Defendant to be the sole surviving executor and trustee of the Late Father’s estate, and that he was entitled to apply to have the Property conveyed to him. The Property was thereafter transmitted and duly registered in the 1st Defendant’s sole name.

In the Late Mother’s will dated 18 May 2002, she appointed the 1st Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant as the co-executors and trustees of her estate, which consists solely of her 1/7th share in the Late Father’s estate. This share is to be divided among three of the siblings, in order of seniority, as follows:

Name Capacity Share
Foo Jee Seng 3rd Defendant 1/4
Foo Jhee Tuang 1st Defendant Co-executor and trustee 1/4
Foo Jee Boo 1st Plaintiff Co-executor and trustee 1/2

A grant of probate for the Late Mother’s estate was obtained on 1 October 2012 and issued to the 1st Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant on 14 December 2012.3 It should be noted that the 2nd Plaintiff is neither an executor nor a beneficiary of the Late Mother’s estate.

The Late Brother passed away intestate on 19 July 2007. His estate also consists solely of his 1/7th share of the Late Father’s estate. By FC/P 678 of 2015, a letter of administration was granted to the Late Brother’s widow, Chen Yu, in February 2016, which appointed her as the sole administrator of the Late Brother’s estate. Over the course of the present proceedings, the parties have come to accept that the claims in relation to the Late Brother’s estate are not part of the present suit. This was because neither of the Plaintiffs is an administrator of the Late Brother’s estate, and therefore would not have had the standing to bring any claim in relation to his estate. A claim relating to the Late Brother’s estate was eventually brought by Chen Yu (as I will elaborate at [59] below). For the purposes of this judgment, I focus only on the disputes in relation to the Late Father’s and Late Mother’s estates.

The relationship between the five surviving Foo siblings quickly deteriorated largely because of disagreements on how to deal with the Property after the Late Mother’s death. In brief, the 1st Plaintiff, the 2nd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant wanted the Property to be sold, but the 1st Defendant did not. These disagreements led to a slew of legal tussles between them. It is necessary to briefly set out some of the legal proceedings and relevant events at this juncture, as these will provide an essential backdrop to the disputes in the present suit.

Originating Summons No 909 of 2010

On 2 September 2010, the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant filed Originating Summons No 909 of 2010 (“OS 909”) in the High Court, naming the 1st Defendant and Foo Chin Chin as defendants. OS 909, amongst other things, was an application to compel a sale of the Property and thereafter the distribution of the proceeds of the sale according to the Late Father’s will. It also sought to compel the 1st Defendant to furnish an account of the proceeds of the rent that he had allegedly received from the Property.

The 2nd Plaintiff and the 3rd Defendant were initially represented by Mr David de Souza (“Mr de Souza”) from M/s De Souza Lim & Goh LLP. Mr de Souza issued the originating summons on behalf of all the plaintiffs in OS 909, ie, the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant. It subsequently came to light that the 1st Plaintiff was separately represented by Mr V Ramakrishnan (“Mr Rama”) from V Ramakrishnan & Co. The 1st Plaintiff had apparently sought leave to intervene in OS 909 to apprise the court of issues relating to the Late Mother’s estate. The 1st Defendant and Foo Chin Chin, the defendants in OS 909, were represented by M/s Tan See Swan & Co (“TSS”).

At the first hearing of OS 909 on 21 March 2011, Prakash J felt that it was not appropriate for the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant to be represented by two different sets of solicitors. It was thereafter agreed that Mr de Souza was to submit on behalf of all of them. Mr Rama then left the chambers.

OS 909 was ultimately dismissed by Prakash J on 18 May 2011 with costs to be paid by the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant to the 1st Defendant and Foo Chin Chin, as taxed or agreed.

CA 70 of 2011

On 9 June 2011, the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant appealed the decision of Prakash J, which led to CA 70 of 2011 (“CA 70”). By this point, the Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant had changed their solicitors to Ms Molly Lim SC, Ms Hwa Hoong Luan (“Ms Hwa”) and Mr Ang Hou Fu from M/s Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC (“WTL”), while the 1st Defendant and Foo Chin Chin continued to be represented by TSS.

Further, the 1st Plaintiff engaged M/s Wong Thomas & Leong to file Summons No 5533 of 2011 (“SUM 5533”), again seeking leave for the 1st Plaintiff, in his capacity as co-executor of the Late Mother’s estate, to participate in CA 70 to apprise the court of the position taken by each of the beneficiaries in relation to the Late Mother’s estate.

CA 70 and SUM 5533 were heard together on 29 February 2012. SUM 5533 was dismissed with no order as to costs. The judgment for CA 70 was reserved. On 7 August 2012, the Court of Appeal delivered judgment for CA 70 and made the following orders (collectively “the CA Orders”):4

1. The Appeal be allowed;

2. the [1st Defendant] shall take steps to sell [the Property] and distribute the sale proceeds to the beneficiaries according to their respective entitlements under [the Late Father’s will];

3. the sale of the Property shall be effected no later than six months from the date of the judgment hereof, ie, 7th August 2012;

4. the solicitors for the [Plaintiffs and the 3rd Defendant] [ie, WTL], and the [1st Defendant] [ie, TSS] shall jointly appoint a valuer/agent and a solicitor to effect the sale;

5. the [1st Defendant] shall, within three months of the date of the judgment hereof, ie, 7th August 2012, furnish an account of the trust to all the beneficiaries; and

6. the parties are requested to file their submission on costs within 2 weeks hereof.

On 31 August 2012, after hearing the parties’ submissions on costs, the Court of Appeal further ordered that:

7. The costs of the [Plaintiffs and 3rd Defendant] in [CA 70 and OS 909] shall be paid out of the proceeds of the sale of the Property; and

8. The [1st Defendant] shall bear his own costs.

Appointment of the 2nd Defendant and attempts to sell the Property

Pursuant to the CA Orders, WTL and TSS jointly appointed the 2nd Defendant as the law firm having conduct of the matter. I will elaborate on this appointment further at [177]–[181] below. Ms Eunice Chee (“Ms Chee”) of the 2nd Defendant was the solicitor in charge of the matter, and the one whom the parties and their solicitors corresponded with. WTL and TSS also appointed DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd (“DTZ”) as the valuer/agent for the sale of the Property.

An auction for the Property was originally scheduled for 31 October 2012. However, the auction for the Property could not be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Aljunied-Hougang Town Council and another v Lim Swee Lian Sylvia and others and another suit
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 October 2019
    ...for an account is discretionary”. This is also the position taken in Singapore. In Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others [2016] SGHC 260, the High Court held (at [80]–[81]) that while an executor of an estate was obliged to keep accounts and furnish them upon the beneficiaries......
  • Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 18 July 2018
    ...other good reason, the court in its discretion thinks it wrong to make an order”: Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others [2016] SGHC 260 (“Foo Jee Boo”) at [81] per George Wei J, citing Attorney-General v Cocke and Another [1988] Ch 414 at 420H per Harman J. The law in this are......
  • Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 28 September 2018
    ...it is oppressive to require the trustee to do so, or for some other good reason (Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others [2016] SGHC 260 at [81]). The extent of disclosure required in furnishing an account is fact-specific in nature. However, the trustee must by the accounting p......
  • Chye Seng Kait v Chye Seng Fong
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 April 2021
    ...and plaintiff-in-counterclaim. Case(s) referred to Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048 (folld) Foo Jee Boo v Foo Jhee Tuang [2016] SGHC 260 (folld) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) Hayes' Will Trusts, Re [1971] 1 WLR 758 (refd) Lau Siew Kim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT