Ong Chai Hong (sole executrix of the estate of Chiang Chia Liang, deceased) v Chiang Shirley and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Edmund Leow JC
• Judgment Date: 22 April 2015
• Neutral Citation: [2015] SGHC 110
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Soo Chye and Subir Singh Grewal (Aequitas Law LLP)
• Docket Number: Suit No 820 of 2012
• Date: 22 April 2015
• Hearing Date: 10 February 2015
• Subject Matter: judgments and orders,Civil Procedure
• Published date: 20 January 2017
• Citation: [2015] SGHC 110
• Defendant Counsel: The first defendant in person.,Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah (UniLegal LLC)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2015

Edmund Leow JC: Introduction

Disputes erupted amongst the siblings of a wealthy family over the estates of their late parents. The case before me involved the estate of their late father, Chiang Chia Liang (“the Chiang estate”). It was an action brought by the executrix, who had been appointed under Chiang’s will, for various court orders and declarations in respect of the administration of his estate. All the defendants were beneficiaries of his will. The first three defendants were his children. The fourth defendant was the estate of his wife, who died after her husband. The fifth defendant was his mistress. The main players were the first and second defendants, whose dispute over the administration over their late mother’s estate had also been played out in the courts. That dispute was recently adjudicated in Chiang Shirley v Chiang Dong Pheng [2015] SGHC 98, which provides some background to the family history. As there may be more legal proceedings in relation to the case that I heard, I make no further comment except on what is necessary to resolve a narrow issue.

Background

The trial to determine the assets belonging to the Chiang estate started in January 2014. The action against the fifth defendant – which was in relation to one clause in the will - was discontinued after the parties entered into a consent order on 16 January 2014. No order was made as to costs. On 2 July 2014, the plaintiff and the other four defendants entered into a settlement, which resulted in a consent judgment (“the Consent Judgment”). The relevant terms in the Consent Judgment are as follows:

3. The 2nd Defendant, being the surviving account holder of RHB Bank (L) Limited Account Number [xxx], is entitled to the remainder balance of US $659,449.29 in the said account, and shall divide the said balance between the 1st, 2nd and 3rd Defendants, equally, within 6 months of this order.

…

9. Costs to be reserved to the Trial Judge.

10. Parties be at liberty to apply.

As can be seen, the third term of the consent judgment required the second defendant to give to the first defendant a share of the balance in a bank account within six months of the order (“the Distribution Term”).

Pursuant to the ninth term of the Consent Judgment and after hearing the parties on costs, I made a costs order on 21 July 2014 (“the Costs Order”). As between the plaintiff and the defendants, I ordered the first defendant to pay 90% of the Plaintiff’s costs and the second to fourth defendants to pay the remaining 10% of the Plaintiff’s costs. As between the defendants, I ordered the first defendant to pay 70% of the costs of the second to fourth defendants. The costs were to be agreed or taxed on a standard basis.

The distribution – amounting to US$219,816.43 – was to have taken place by early January 2015 pursuant to the Distribution Term. By then, it was apparent that the parties were still unable to agree on the costs; they were headed for taxation. On 8 January 2015, the first defendant demanded that the second defendant comply with the Distribution Term by the...