Low Fong Mei and Another v Ko Teck Siang and others and other applications

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: L P Thean J
• Judgment Date: 04 May 1989
• Neutral Citation: [1989] SGHC 46
• Docket Number: Suits Nos 1613 of 1983, 422 of 1986 and 296 of 1987
• Date: 04 May 1989
• Year: 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jules Sher QC and Kelvin Chia (Chor Pee & Co)
• Citation: [1989] SGHC 46
• Defendant Counsel: Tay Beng Chai (Arthur Loke & Partners),Leolin Price QC, Tang Liang Hong and Siaw Kheng Boon (Tang & Co),Third defendant in Suit Nos 422 of 1986 and 296 of 1987 in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Whether claims covered by deed of family arrangement and consent order,Statement of claim,Whether claims disclose reasonable cause of action, frivolous or vexations or amount to abuse of process of court,Striking out,Pleadings

Cur Adv Vult

There are altogether six appeals before me: two appeals by the plaintiff against two orders respectively of the assistant registrar made on 26 January 1988 in Suit No 422 of 1986 in which he struck out the statement of claim of the plaintiff and dismissed the action against the first defendant and the second defendant respectively; three appeals by the plaintiffs against three orders respectively of the same assistant registrar made also on 26 January 1988 in Suit No 296 of 1987 in which he struck out the statement of claim of the plaintiffs and dismissed the action against the first defendant, second defendant and third defendant respectively, and one appeal by the first defendant against an order of another assistant registrar made on 24 August 1988 in Suit No 1613 of 1983, in which, amongst other things, he dismissed an application by the first defendant to strike out the plaintiffs` statement of claim and for dismissal of the action against him. All these appeals raised the same issues and were therefore heard together. The circumstances that gave rise to these appeals are rather complex, and it is necessary to set them out in some detail.

I propose to start with an event that happened more than 20 years ago. On 9 April 1966, a prominent wealthy man by the name Ko Teck Kin, aged 55, died. His death was not unexpected, as he had been suffering from a terminal illness for some time. Just ten days before his death, that is, on 30 March 1966, Ko Teck Kin (the testator) made a will (the will) and appointed his wife, Chang Jih Hao (Madam Chang), and his younger brother, Ko Teck Siang (Teck Siang) to be the executors and trustees of the will. Probate of the will was granted to Madam Chang and Teck Siang on 7 October 1966 and was issued on 5 April 1967. By his will, the testator made various bequests to his children and others, and the provisions which are material in these proceedings are found in cl 12 which reads as follows:

I give and bequeath to my trustees all my shares and interest in the following companies namely Ho Chiang Shipping Co Ltd, Ko Rubber Plantation Ltd, Kah Hin Rubber Co Ltd, Chin Cheng Realty Ltd all of Singapore, and Sun Hing Realty Ltd of Hong Kong, to hold upon trust to divide the said shares and interest into 210 equal shares and hold each 210th share upon the following trusts:

(a) as to 50/210th equal shares for the said Chang Jih Hao,

(b) as to 10/210th equal shares for Ko Oon Hin,

(c) as to 20/210th equal shares for Ko Oon Kay,

(d) as to 20/210th equal shares for Ko Oon Soon,

(e) as to 15/210th equal shares for Chan Yen Cheng,

(f) as to 30/210th equal shares for the said Ko Teck Siang,

(g) as to 22/210th equal shares for Ko Seng Gie,

(h) as to 20/210th equal shares for Ko Teck Djie,

(i) as to 15/210th equal shares for Ko Hong Kiat,

(j) as to 3/210th equal shares for Ko Choon Huat,

(k) as to 1/210th equal shares for Ko Oon Sin,

(l) as to 1/210th equal shares for Ko Oon Hian, and

(m) as to 3/210th equal shares for Ko Seng Hock.

It is common ground that the beneficiaries listed in items (a) to (e) of cl 12 are members of the immediate family of the testator (collectively called Class A beneficiaries), and the total number of shares bequeathed to them amounts to 115, and those beneficiaries in items (f) to (m) are his collateral relatives (collectively called Class B beneficiaries) and the total number of shares bequeathed to them amounts to 95. One of the legatees was Ko Oon Kay (Oon Kay), who was the son of the testator by his other widow, Madam Chan Yen Cheng. Oon Kay died on 4 March 1971 leaving his surviving widow, Low Fong Mei, and one daughter, Ko Lee Lian. Letters of administration to his estate were granted to Low Fong Mei and Ko Oon Soon (Oon Soon). Oon Soon is also the son of the testator by Madam Chan Yen Cheng. Low Fong Mei has since remarried and is now known as Mrs Shirley Wang (Shirley Wang).

Some ten years after the death of the testator, disputes between Madam Chang and Teck Siang erupted, and these disputes generated a plethora of litigation. Within a period of less than one month, between 28 August 1979 and 24 September 1979, two originating summonses and ten suits were instituted in the High Court. First, by Originating Summons No 325 of 1979, Madam Chang claimed against Teck Siang for an order under s 55 of the Trustee Act to vest in her certain shares in four companies, namely, Ho Chiang Co (Pte) Ltd (Ho Chiang), Ko Rubber Plantations (Pte) Ltd (Ko Rubber), Kah Hin Rubber Company (Pte) Ltd (Kah Hin) and Chin Cheng Realty (Pte) Ltd (Chin Cheng), and also for an account and an order for administration of the estate of Ko Teck Kin deceased (the estate) and other consequential reliefs. Less than three weeks thereafter, Teck Siang, as the executor and trustee of the estate, took out an application in Originating Summons No 359 of 1979 against Madam Chang as the executrix of the estate, and he joined in those proceedings all the other legatees of the bequest under cl 12 of the will, and he sought a determination of the construction of cll 12 and 13 of the will. On the same day or immediately thereafter, Teck Siang caused or procured three writs of summons to be taken out in Suits No 2764, 2765 and 2820 of 1979 respectively, in which Ho Chiang, Kah Hin and Ko Rubber respectively sued Madam Chang as the executrix of the estate for recovery of debts alleged to be due to them respectively, and in all these three actions, Teck Siang, as the executor and trustee of the estate, was joined as a plaintiff. In addition, Ko Rubber (no doubt at the instance of Teck Siang) also took out a writ in Suit No 2821 of 1979 against Madam Chang personally for recovery of a debt alleged to be due to the company. At or about the same time, Teck Siang, as the executor and trustee of the estate, took out two writs against Madam Chang both in her personal capacity and as the executrix of the estate in Suits No 2776 and 2777 of 1979 claiming respectively for an order for specific performance of various oral agreements alleged to have been made between them relating to the administration of the estate and for a debt alleged to be due to him. In response, Madam Chang took out four writs against Teck Siang in Suits No 2852, 2853, 2854 and 2855 of 1979, claiming an injunction to restrain Teck Siang, until the administration of the estate is completed, from enforcing payment of any debts due to Chin Cheng, Ko Rubber, Kah Hin and Ho Chiang respectively. Fortunately, the parties to those proceedings came to a settlement, and an instrument called the deed of family arrangement was made on 2 February 1981. On the following day, the parties appeared before the High Court and obtained an order by consent in Originating Summons No 359 of 1979 to the effect that all further proceedings in the originating summons be stayed, except for the purpose of carrying into effect the terms of the deed of family arrangement. However, the disputes between Teck Siang and Madam Chang did not end there and then; they continued. For the next three months, very acrimonious correspondence passed between them. On 26 May 1981 Madam Chang`s solicitors took out a summons-in-chambers for an order that the deed of family arrangement be enforced, and the matter came for hearing again before the same judge in the High Court on 1 June 1981, when he ordered all the parties to perform and fulfil the obligations under the deed of family arrangement. Presumably, thereafter, the parties concerned carried out the terms of the deed of family arrangement, and no quarrel or dispute developed or arose out of the second order. It certainly appeared that with that order came the end to the disputes between the parties concerned in relation to the estate. Unfortunately, that was only the first chapter; the second chapter commenced about two years later.

On 8 April 1983, Shirley Wang and her daughter, the latter suing by Shirley Wang as next friend, commenced proceedings in Suit No 1613 of 1983 (first action) against Teck Siang, Ko Seng Gie, Ko Chuan Seng also known as Ko Hong Kiat, and Oon Soon. The claim against the first three defendants is for specific sums of money alleged to be due from them respectively; Oon Soon was joined as a co-administrator to the estate of Oon Kay as he refused to be joined as a plaintiff. The basis of the plaintiffs` claim is this. On diverse dates the testator caused to be incorporated in Singapore the four companies, namely, Kah Hin, Ho Chiang, Chin Cheng and Ko Rubber (hereafter collectively called Singapore companies); he also caused to be incorporated in Hong Kong one company called Sun Hing Realty Limited (Sun Hing). The shares in the Singapore companies were during his lifetime held in part by the testator and in part by one or more of the first three defendants, namely, Teck Siang, Ko Seng Gie and Ko Chuan Seng, and the shares in Sun Hing were held in part by the testator and in part by other registered shareholders. It was understood between the testator and the shareholders of the companies that all the shares in the Singapore companies and Sun Hing were to be held by all the shareholders, including the testator, in trust for the testator and his relatives, and immediately prior to the death of the testator, the beneficiaries under such trust were the following persons in the following proportions:

(a) Testator 115/210 shares

(b) First defendant 30/210 shares

(c) Second defendant 22/210 shares

(d) Third defendant 15/210 shares

(e) Ko Teck Djie 20/210 shares

(f) Ko Choon Huat 3/210 shares

(g) Ko Oon Sin 1/210 shares

(h) Ko Oon Hian 1/210 shares

(i) Ko Seng Hock 3/210 shares

210/210 shares

Consistent with the trusts, the testator by cl 12 of the will bequeathed all his shares and interest in the Singapore companies and Sun Hing to the undermentioned persons in the following proportions:

Class A

...