Khor Liang Ing Grace (executor of the estate of Tan See Wee, deceased) v Nie Jianmin

• Judge: Tan Siong Thye J
• Judgment Date: 13 October 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 202
• Hearing Date: 03 September 2014
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 202
• Docket Number: Case No P179 of 2014 (Summons No 2787 of 2014)
• Published date: 17 October 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: grant of probate,Probate and administration
• Defendant Counsel: Goh Siong Pheck Francis and Chong Yimei (Harry Elias Partnership LLP)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ling Tien Wah (Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
• Year: 2014

Tan Siong Thye J: Introduction

This is an application by Khor Liang Ing Grace (“Ms Khor”), the executor of the estate of Tan See Wee, her deceased husband (“the deceased”). She seeks to remove a caveat filed by Nie Jianmin (“Ms Nie”) against a grant of probate for the purposes of executing the deceased’s will.

Ms Nie’s caveat was lodged on the basis of an alleged $762,000 loan she had made to the deceased not long before his demise. She is claiming this sum from the deceased’s estate. I have to decide whether there was such a loan and also whether the caveat should be removed.

The facts

The deceased was a banker and fund manager working first as an investment manager with the Development Bank of Singapore. Later, he worked as a fund manager with Merrill Lynch Asset Managers.1Caveator’s bundle of documents (“CBOD”) Tab 8, at para 5. He died on 18 March 2014,2CBOD Tab 8, at para 4. leaving behind his will which named Ms Khor as the sole executor and trustee of his estate.3CBOD Tab 3, at p 8. There is no dispute about this.

The dispute

Soon after the deceased’s death, Ms Nie lodged a caveat against the grant of probate in respect of the deceased’s estate. This was filed on 26 March 2014.4CBOD Tab 1. Ms Nie claims that she has an interest in the deceased’s estate as the deceased owed her $762,000.5CBOD Tab 1. Her version of the story is that she had lent money to the deceased, whom her husband, Tan Chau Chuang (“Mr Tan”), had described as a “reliable long term friend”.6CBOD Tab 7, at para 7. She claims that she had only lent the money on her husband’s assurance that the deceased was financially sound and would repay the money. Pursuant to this, she handed the deceased a cashier’s order for $762,000 in the deceased’s name on 30 December 2013.7CBOD Tab 7, at para 6. Ms Nie thus claims that she lodged the caveat to protect her interest as a creditor.8CBOD Tab 7, at para 9.

Ms Khor’s story is different. The sum was not a loan but rather an investment in the deceased’s new project in Vietnam. The deceased told her that he had entered into an investment. She then found out that Mr Tan had invested his money into the deceased’s new project as well.9CBOD Tab 8, at para 18. Her position therefore is that the $762,000 was not a loan given to the deceased but an investment made by Mr Tan in a business venture with the deceased.

The present proceedings

Subsequently, Ms Khor made an application on 24 April 2014 in her capacity as the executor of the deceased’s estate. She sought for probate to be granted to her.10CBOD Tab 2. The next day, she filed her supporting affidavit pursuant to O 71 r 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the ROC”). The supporting affidavit was filed together with an extract from the Register of Deaths (stating the cause of the deceased’s death) and his last will.11CBOD Tab 3. It was then that her lawyers informed her that a caveat had been lodged by Ms Nie against the grant of probate. As Ms Khor had always known Ms Nie as “Jessie”, she did not know that they were the same person until later. It was only after speaking with Mr Tan and a friend, Teoh Teik Kee (“Mr Teoh”), that she drew the connection between the caveat that was filed by Ms Nie and the $762,000 investment purportedly made by Mr Tan.12CBOD Tab 8, at paras 20– 21.

The meeting between Ms Khor and Mr Tan in the presence of Samuel Koh

In order to understand the circumstances surrounding the alleged debt of $762,000, Ms Khor met Mr Tan on 23 May 2014 with a friend, Samuel Koh (“Mr Koh”). At the meeting, Mr Tan stated that the deceased had owed him US$500,000. This sum was Mr Tan’s investment in the deceased’s Vietnam project. This was an investment in Tri Viet Media Corp (“TVM”), a Vietnamese media company.13CBOD Tab 8, at para 22; CBOD Tab 9, at para 5.

As proof of Mr Tan’s investment, Ms Khor was shown copies of the remittance advice to the deceased. She was also shown text messages sent through WhatsApp Messenger between Mr Tan and the deceased, indicating that the deceased had asked Mr Tan to prepare a curriculum vitae to be presented to a Vietnamese company with him as a potential investor.14CBOD Tab 8, at para 22.

Ms Khor later understood from the meeting that Mr Tan had subsequently borrowed money from Ms Nie to invest in TVM – he did not have the money to invest in the project then. As the deceased had passed away, Mr Tan sought a return of his investment and the caveat was filed to protect his investment interest.15CBOD Tab 8, at para 24.

The show cause action

On 26 May 2014, a notice was served on Ms Nie’s solicitors. It warned her to appear within eight days of service to file a notice of appearance stating her interest in the estate of the deceased. If she had no contrary interest, then she had to show cause against the grant of probate to Ms Khor. The court would proceed to issue a grant of probate to the executor if she defaulted.16CBOD Tab 4.

Ms Nie thus entered her appearance on 3 June 2014 showing cause against the grant of probate to Ms Khor. She alleged that she was a creditor of the deceased’s estate. Therefore, the grant of probate should not be made unless her interests could be assured. On the other hand, Ms Khor requested that Ms Nie’s caveat be expunged.17CBOD Tab 8, at para 7.

In addition to her objections against the grant of probate to Ms Khor, Ms Nie also requested that her claim be recognised and that the court make an order for Ms Khor to repay the debt to her.18CBOD Tab 7, at para 19.

The issues

On the above facts, the following issues are: whether this court has the power under s 33 of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed) (“PBA”) to hear or grant Ms Nie’s application for her debt claim to be recognised or to order that the debt be repaid to her; and whether Ms Nie has a caveatable interest against the deceased’s estate.

Does this court have the power under s 33 of the PBA to hear Ms Nie’s debt claim or grant Ms Nie’s application for her debt claim to be recognised or to order that the debt be repaid to her?

Section 33 of the PBA reads as follows: Caveat 33. Any person having or claiming to have interest may, at any time after the death of a deceased person and before probate or letters of administration have been granted to his estate, enter a general caveat, so that no probate or letters of administration shall be granted without notice to the caveator, and after entry of any...