Ng Bee Keong v Ng Choon Huay and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andrew Ang J
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2013
• Neutral Citation: [2013] SGHC 107
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 14 January 2013,09 January 2013,10 January 2013,15 February 2013,16 January 2013,18 January 2013,11 January 2013,15 January 2013,17 January 2013,08 January 2013
• Docket Number: Suit No 367 of 2011
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Barker SC, Haresh Kamdar and Wong Xun Ai (KhattarWong LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Edmund Kronenburg and Lye Hui Xian (Braddell Brothers) and Lim Joo Toon (Joo Toon LLC)
• Subject Matter: Succession and Wills,Testamentary Capacity
• Published date: 28 May 2013

Andrew Ang J: Introduction

The dispute in this case concerns two wills executed by one Ng Ching Khye (“the testator”) on 1 April 2009 (“the First Will”) and 14 May 2009 (“the Second Will”) respectively. The testator passed away on 31 May 2009 after a long battle with cancer.

The First Will appointed the plaintiff as the sole executor and beneficiary of the testator’s estate. (The plaintiff, Ng Bee Keong, is the nephew of the testator. His late father, Ng Ching Leong, was the testator’s elder brother.) The Second Will contained terms identical to those in the First Will save for the addition of the following paragraph:

I DECLARE that I make no provision for my wife because soon after the marriage, I have lived separate and apart from my wife.

As sole executor of the Second Will, the plaintiff filed Probate No 192 of 2009 (ex parte originating summons for probate) of the Second Will on 15 July 2009.

It was, however, discovered that caveats against probate had been filed on 3 July 2009 by Ng Choon Huay (“the first defendant”), the elder sister of the testator who is represented in the action by her son Tan Thiam Chye (“Tan”); and Eng Cheng Hock (“ECH”), the testator’s younger brother.

Following ECH’s demise, his son Eng Tet Hwa (“the second Defendant”), filed a caveat against probate of the testator’s estate on 18 February 2011 in his capacity as administrator of his father’s estate.

The third defendant, Lim Kim Hong (“Ah Phee”) filed a caveat on 25 November 2010. She claimed to have entered into a Chinese customary marriage with the testator some 50 years ago although they lived apart after the wedding ceremony. She has since withdrawn from the suit following a settlement with the plaintiff.

Factual background The parties and their witnesses

The testator passed away on 31 May 2009. It was not disputed that in life he treated himself at all times as single or divorced and did not have any children. A retiree, he derived the majority of his income from renting out his shophouse described below. At his death, the testator’s assets were as follows: Apartment at Heritage View Condominium (6 Dover Rise, #05-02 Heritage View, Singapore 138678). Shophouse at 269 Holland Avenue. Shares. Money in bank accounts. Insurance policies (worth approximately $202,000). Car (worth approximately $40,000).

Apart from himself, the plaintiff called nine witnesses of fact and one expert witness. A table of the plaintiff’s witnesses is set out below for ease of reference:

	Name	Background
1	Chan Soon Lian (“Rachel”)	The plaintiff’s wife.
2	Ng Bee Lye (“George”)	The plaintiff’s brother and nephew of the testator.
3	Yeh Jin Sien (“Mr Yeh”)	The lawyer who prepared and witnessed the execution of the First and Second Wills.
4	Teng Kee Tin (“Diana”)	Secretary to Mr Yeh and a witness to the execution of the First and Second Wills.
5	Teo Bee Piak (“Mdm Teo”)	Hairdresser and close friend of the testator.
6	Er Boon Leong @ Jason (“Nurse Jason”)	A nurse to the testator.
7	Dr Christopher Goh (“Dr Goh”)	Doctor to the testator.
8	Vilma Bravo Videz (“Ms Videz)	Maid to the plaintiff’s family.
9	Koh Choon Hong (“Mr Koh”)	Bank officer from Maybank Singapore (“Maybank”).
10	Dr Francis Ngui (“Dr Ngui”)	Expert witness.

On the defendants’ side there were the following witnesses as set out in the table below for ease of reference:

	Name	Background
1	Tan Thiam Chye (“Tan”)	Nephew of the testator and son of the first defendant. Litigation representative of the first defendant.
2	Eng Tet Hwa (“the second defendant”)	Nephew of the testator and son of the testator’s late brother Eng Cheng Hock.
3	Peter Koh Teck Heng (“Peter”)	Nephew of the testator and son of the testator’s late sister Ng Khoon.
4	Ang Chai Seng (“Ang”)	A long time friend of the testator.
5	Kong Ah Lan (“Nurse Kong”)	A nurse to the testator.
6	Claudia Sumasni d/o Pakasekaran (“Nurse Claudia”)	A nurse to the testator.
7	Dr R Nagulendran (“Dr Nagulendran”)	Expert witness.

Chronology of Events

A brief chronology of events leading up to the signing of the First and Second Wills (collectively referred to as “the Wills”), will now follow. It should be noted from the outset that there was a dispute between the parties as to some of the facts laid out in the following paragraphs.

18 March 2009 conversation

On 18 March 2009, the plaintiff accompanied the testator to Best Denki at Vivocity to purchase a new television set. Later that same day, whilst installing the television set, the plaintiff asked the testator about his plans for the distribution of his assets upon his death. The testator allegedly replied that he would leave his entire estate to the plaintiff.¹

The plaintiff recounted that he expressed surprise and suggested that the testator leave his estate to someone else. The testator replied in the Hokkien dialect, with words to the effect, “if not to you, who else?”² The testator reportedly declined to accept the plaintiff’s suggestion that the testator’s shophouse be returned to Ng Ching Leong Pte Ltd (on the basis that since the shophouse had allegedly been given to the testator by the plaintiff’s father Ng Ching Leong) and reiterated his intention to leave his entire estate to the plaintiff.³

The defendants contended that this conversation never took place.

25 March 2009 incident

The plaintiff alleged that on 25 March 2009, he informed Rachel about the testator’s intention to make him the sole beneficiary of the estate.⁴

Later that same morning, the plaintiff and Rachel visited the testator at his home. The plaintiff and Rachel claimed that during the visit: Rachel sought and received the testator’s confirmation that he intended to leave everything to the plaintiff.⁵ The testator also confirmed, in response to a question from Rachel, that he did not want to leave anything to the plaintiff’s eldest brother, Ng Bee Huat.⁶ When asked by Rachel if he wanted to make a will, the testator replied in Hokkien, with words to the effect that he would make his will “in due course”.⁷ The testator discussed briefly the rising value of his Holland Avenue shophouse with the plaintiff and Rachel. The testator advised the plaintiff to rent out the property as opposed to selling it or operating a business thereon.⁸

The plaintiff and Rachel further alleged that Peter went to the testator’s house that same day to show the testator a rental cheque he had collected on the testator’s behalf⁹ and was informed by the plaintiff that the testator had decided to leave everything to the plaintiff.¹⁰ Peter then asked the testator if this was true to which the testator replied in the affirmative.¹¹ Peter then knelt on one knee and asked the testator in Hokkien, “You want to give everything to Ah Keong – one person only?” to which the testator replied again in the affirmative.¹²

The defendants contended that these two alleged conversations never took place.

26 March 2009 incident

Since the precise timing of the events on this day was disputed, the times given are only estimates.

The testator was admitted to the Accident & Emergency Department of the National University Hospital (“NUH”) after he fainted in the carpark of his condominium.¹³ At or around noon, both the plaintiff and Peter, who were at the hospital, were informed that the testator was in a “critical condition”. It was undisputed that the plaintiff then told Peter that he was leaving the hospital to arrange for a lawyer to prepare the testator’s will.¹⁴

The plaintiff telephoned the lawyer, Mr Yeh of J S Yeh & Co, for an appointment before going to his office in the afternoon.¹⁵ The plaintiff’s version of what transpired during the meeting with Mr Yeh was disputed by the defendants.

Later that day, sometime in the late afternoon, the plaintiff and Mr Yeh arrived at NUH. Eng Cheng Hock and his three sons (including the second defendant) were there, while Peter had left NUH. When he was being introduced by the plaintiff to the testator, Mr Yeh was confronted by the second defendant in the testator’s hospital room. Mr Yeh subsequently left without attending to the testator. The testator underwent his tracheotomy operation the same evening.

The plaintiff alleged that on that same night, at or around 10pm to 11pm, he telephoned Peter, the second defendant and Tan Fia Kee (the first defendant’s late son) to suggest a plan to share the movables of the estate equally between the four branches of the family so that the signing of the will could go ahead.¹⁶ The plaintiff claimed that this plan was rejected by them.¹⁷ The defendants disputed this version of events and instead alleged that the agreement was to share the testator’s entire estate equally between the four branches of the family, which they accepted.¹⁸ The defendants further claimed that it was Peter’s idea that the plaintiff persuade the testator to execute a will to that effect.¹⁹ It is undisputed by the parties that nothing came of either plan.

Signing of the First Will

On 31 March 2009, the testator was transferred to Singapore General Hospital (“SGH”).

The plaintiff alleged that on 1 April 2009 he asked Mr Yeh to go to SGH at the request of the testator who wanted to execute his will. The terms of the First Will read as follows: 1. I NG CHING KHYE (holder of Nric No. [xxx]) of 6 Dover Rise #05-02, Singapore, 138678 HEREBY REVOKE all my former Wills and Testamentary dispositions made by me and DECLARE this to be my LAST WILL. 2. I hereby APPOINT my nephew, NG BEE KEONG (holder of Nric No. [xxx]) of 17 King’s Close, Singapore 268194 to be my sole Executor and Trustee of this my [sic] Will (hereinafter referred to as “my...