Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and Others

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date22 November 2006
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 950 of 2006
Date22 November 2006

[2006] SGHC 211

High Court

Sundaresh Menon JC

Originating Summons No 950 of 2006

Goh Nellie
Goh Lian Teck and others

Valliappan Subramaniam (Veritas Law Corporation) for the plaintiff

Andre Maniam (Wong Partnership) for the second defendant

Jagjit Singh (Gurdip & Gill) for the fifth defendant

Eighth and ninth defendants in person.

Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck [2006] 3 SLR (R) 712; [2006] 3 SLR 712 (folld)

Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93 (refd)

Bailey, Re; Barrett v Hyder [1951] Ch 407 (folld)

Blackham's Case (1709) 1 Salk 290; 91 ER 257 (refd)

Blair v Curran (1939) 62 CLR 464 (folld)

Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon [1999] 1 WLR 1482 (folld)

Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] 1 AC 853 (folld)

Downshire Settled Estates, Re; Marquess of Downshire v Royal Bank of Scotland [1953] Ch 218 (folld)

Henderson v Henderson [1843-1860] All ER Rep 378 (folld)

Setiadi Hendrawan v OCBC Securities Pte Ltd [2001] 3 SLR (R) 296; [2001] 4 SLR 503 (refd)

Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation [1926] AC 155 (refd)

Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (folld)

Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) [2002] 2 AC 1 (folld)

Juan José de la Trinidad Concha v Manuel Antonio Concha (1886) 11 HL 541 (folld)

Khan v Golechha International Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 1482 (refd)

Kinch v Walcott [1929] AC 482 (refd)

Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek [2003] 3 SLR (R) 644; [2003] 3 SLR 644 (folld)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2006] 2 SLR (R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565 (refd)

Lee Hiok Tng v Lee Hiok Tng [2001] 1 SLR (R) 771; [2001] 3 SLR 41 (refd)

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2005] 3 SLR (R) 157; [2005] 3 SLR 157 (folld)

Leo Teng Choy v Leo Teng Kit [2000] 3 SLR (R) 636; [2001] 1 SLR 256 (distd)

Linprint Pty Ltd v Hexham Textiles Pty Ltd (1991) 23 NSWLR 508 (refd)

McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands [1980] QB 283 (refd)

Mills v Cooper [1967] 2 QB 459 (folld)

Molesworth v Molesworth [1947] 2 All ER 842 (refd)

New, In re [1901] 2 Ch 534 (refd)

New Brunswick Railway Company v British and French Trust Corporation Limited [1939] AC 1 (refd)

Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy [1998] 2 SLR (R) 434; [1998] 2 SLR 439 (folld)

Reichel v Magrath (1889) 14 App Cas 665 (refd)

Richards v Richards [1953] P 36 (folld)

Sanford, In re; Sanford v Sanford [1901] 1 Ch 939 (folld)

SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3) [1987] QB 1028 (refd)

Tan Tye, deceased, Re [1957] MLJ 114 (refd)

Thoday v Thoday [1964] P 181 (refd)

Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man [2006] 2 SLR (R) 117; [2006] 2 SLR 117 (refd)

Trustees Act (Cap 337,1985 Rev Ed)s 59 (1)

Trustees Act (Cap 337,2005 Rev Ed)s 56 (1) (consd)

Trustee Act 1925 (c 19) (UK)s 57

Res judicata–Whether plaintiff's action should be dismissed on grounds of “cause of action estoppel”, “issue estoppel” and/or defence of abuse of process–Applicable principles–Succession and Wills–Construction–Plaintiff beneficiary under will seeking to sell property–Defendant beneficiary under will objecting to sale of property–Whether will containing clear indication that each beneficiary having right to veto sale of property–Whether court should exercise discretion to allow sale of property–Section 56 (1) Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)

One Mdm Loh owned two properties (“No 59” and “No 61”). An apartment building was developed on No 59. Mdm Loh, with her family, stayed at No 61 until her death. Mdm Loh bequeathed No 59 and No 61, variously, to her ten children, her grandson and her daughter-in-law. These properties became the centre of a bitter dispute among the beneficiaries, in particular, the plaintiff (“Nellie”), the second defendant (“Lian Chyu”) and the fifth defendant (“Rosaline”).

Rosaline applied for a determination of her right to reside in No 61 (“OS 618/2005”) and an order was made that she could reside in No 61 rent-free as long “as she desired (until sale) and that it shall not be sold without [her] consent (in writing)”.

Subsequently, the majority of beneficiaries to No 61 expressed the desire to sell No 61 notwithstanding objections by Rosaline and three other beneficiaries. As a result of Rosaline's opposition to the sale of No 61, Nellie, in her capacity as administratrix of Mdm Loh's estate, applied to the High Court for an order pursuant to s 56 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) sanctioning the sale of No 61. The application raised the questions of whether this issue had already been decided in OS 618/2005 and was hence res judicata; and whether the court should not allow the application as there was sufficient indication in the will that each of the beneficiaries had a right to veto the sale of No 61.

Held, dismissing the plaintiff's application:

(1) A court's powers under s 56 (1) of the Act in relation to the management and administration of trust property were limited by the express terms of the trust instrument. This was no more than a reflection of the time-honoured principle that it was not for the courts to rewrite a trust instrument save in very limited circumstances where recourse may be had to the court's inherent jurisdiction. It was clear that while s 56 (1) allowed a court the discretion to empower a trustee to perform an act that was not expressly authorised by the instrument, it could not empower him to perform an act that was expressly forbidden by it. Accordingly, the first task for a court faced with an application for it to exercise its powers under s 56 (1) of the Act was to construe the terms of the trust instrument in order to ascertain whether there was an express prohibition of the very act that the trustee wished, with the court's leave, to perform. It was only in the absence of any such prohibition that the court needed to assess the application on its merits: at [11] to [14].

(2) The umbrella doctrine of res judicata encompassed three conceptually distinct though interrelated principles. The first of these was known as “cause of action estoppel”, which prevented a party from asserting or denying as against the other party, the existence of a particular cause of action, the non-existence or existence of which had been determined by a court of competent jurisdiction in previous litigation between the same parties: at [17].

(3) If the previous decision did not determine the cause of action sued on in the later proceedings, that decision might still be invoked as having determined, as an essential step in its reasoning, an issue that proved relevant in the later case and further consideration of that issue might be foreclosed. This was commonly known as “issue estoppel”. To establish an issue estoppel: (a) there had to be a final and conclusive judgment on the merits; (b) that judgment had to be of a court of competent jurisdiction; (c) there had to be identity between the parties to the two actions that were being compared; and (d) there had to be an identity of subject matter in the two proceedings: at [18] and [26].

(4) In some cases, where neither cause of action estoppel nor issue estoppel were available, a defendant might rely on “the extended doctrine of res judicata” or, as it was more popularly known, the defence of abuse of process. This was distinct from cause of action and issue estoppels. Cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel were absolute bars to relitigation, save in the case of the latter where there was a limited exception in “special cases” or “special circumstances”. Abuse of process was not subject to the same test, the task of the court being to draw the balance between the competing claims of one party to put his case before the court and of the other not to be unjustly hounded given the earlier history of the matter: at [19]to [24].

(5) It was important not to equate finality for the purposes of res judicata with the vexed issue of finality for the purposes of an appeal. The distinction between “final” and “interlocutory” decisions was not relevant to the doctrine of finality in respect of res judicata. Finality for the purposes of res judicata simply referred to a declaration or determination of a party's liability and/or his rights or obligations leaving nothing else to be judicially determined. Whether the decision in question was a final and conclusive judgment on the merits could be ascertained from the intention of the judge as gathered from the relevant documents filed, the order made and the notes of any evidence taken or arguments made. Accordingly, there could be no doubt that the order made in OS 618/2005 was a final determination of the right of Rosaline to reside at No 61: at [28] and [29].

(6) The courts had not taken a narrow view of the requirement of identity between the parties involved in the previous litigation and in the later proceedings. It was clear that the principal players in OS 618/2005 - Rosaline and the administrator of the estate (representing the beneficiaries) - were effectively identical to the parties in the subject application: at [32] and [33].

(7) The requirement that the subject matter of both proceedings be identical encapsulated a number of discrete conceptual strands. First, the issues had to be identical in the sense that the prior decision must have traversed the same ground as the subsequent proceeding and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the earlier decision must not have changed or was incapable of change. Second, the previous determination in question must have been fundamental and not merely collateral to the previous decision so that the decision could not stand without that determination. As to whether an issue was fundamental or collateral, the question had to be approached from a commonsensical perspective, balancing between the important public interest in securing finality and in ensuring that the same...

To continue reading

Request your trial
132 cases
  • The ‘Bunga Melati 5’
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 21 August 2012
    ...193 (overd) Freeman & Lockyer (A Firm) v Buckhurst Park Properties (Mangal) Ltd [1964] 2 QB 480 (folld) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) Golden Petroleum, The [1993] 3 SLR (R) 209; [1994] 1 SLR 92 (refd) ‘Iran Amanat’, The Owners of the Motor Ves......
  • Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 June 2010
    ...mentioned, is in charge of the management of the SICC), D2 to D13 are effectively identical to SICC (see Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453 at [32]-[33] (“Goh Nellie”) on persons who are effectively parties). With regard to the requirements to establish issue estoppel, the cour......
  • Adp v Adq
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 19 January 2012
    ...(refd) Fowke v Fowke [1938] Ch 774 (refd) George Hubert Powell v Viola M Cockburn [1977] 2 SCR 218 (refd) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) Joseph Mathew v Singh Chiranjeev [2010] 1 SLR 338 (refd) L v C [2007] 3 HKLRD 819 (refd) Lee Tat Development Pt......
  • Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 May 2013
    ...1752 (distd) Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin [1997] 3 SLR (R) 649; [1998] 1 SLR 374 (folld) Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR (R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (folld) Goh Swee Fang v Tiah Juah Kim [1994] 3 SLR (R) 556; [1994] 3 SLR 881 (folld) Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...estoppel at best and can be likened more to the defence of abuse of process rather than issue estoppel (see Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 at [41]). This was a more flexible concept necessitating a broad, merits-based judgment which accounted for the public and private intere......
  • Conflict of Laws
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2020, December 2020
    • 1 December 2020
    ...Chong J. 407 Manharlal Trikamdas Mody v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 1161 at [140]–[142], per George Wei JC. 408 [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 at [28], per Sundaresh Menon JC. 409 Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak [2020] 2 SLR 1061 at [39]. 410 It has been said in the co......
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...in arbitration legislation and the New York Convention. 1Henderson v Henderson(1843) 3 Hare 99 at 115. 2Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453. 3China North Industries Investment Ltd v Chum[2010] 5 HKLRD 1. 4Asia Commercial Finance (M) Bhd v Kawal Teliti Sdn Bhd[1995] 3 MLJ 189. 5Por......

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