Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others (No 2) (Lim Lie Hoa, Third Party)

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChoo Han Teck JC
Judgment Date27 September 2002
Neutral Citation[2002] SGHC 227
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 939 of 1991 601156, 601160, 600415 and 600416 of 2002)
Date27 September 2002
Year2002
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselPlaintiff in person
Citation[2002] SGHC 227
Defendant CounselArul Chandran and Ooi Oon Tat (C Arul & Partners),Khoo Boo Jin and Daniel Tan (Wee Swee Teow & Co),Vinodh S Coomaraswamy and Chua Sui Tong (Shook Lin & Bok)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterInterim payments,Whether first defendant controlling some substantial amount of money in estate,Application for discharge,Summons in chambers,Whether allowing application will hinder inquiry,Inquiry to determine assets of estate pending,Civil Procedure,Mareva injunctions,Whether application coming too late,Third party notice,Whether claims must be made after inquiry,Setting aside,O 16 Rules of Court,Application for exchange of auditors' reports and for arbitrator to conduct inquiry,Third party proceedings,Whether any basis to speculate on value of deceased's estate before inquiry,Whether to maintain preservation order,Whether wrong to encourage writ action within narrow scope of inquiry

(Inquiry pursuant to Judgment dated 16 July 1996)

Citation: OS No 939 of 1991 SIC NO 60595,600194,601161,600489,601156,601160,600415 and 600416 of 2002
Jurisdiction: Singapore
Date: 2002:09:23;2002:08:02;2002:07:30;2002:07:05
Court: High Court
Coram: Choo Han Teck, JC
Counsel:

Plaintiff in person

Khoo Boo Jin and Daniel Tan (Wee Swee Teow & Co) for the First Defendant & Third Party
Arul Chandran and Ooi Oon Tat (C. Arul & Partners) for the Second Defendant
Vinodh S Coomaraswamy and Chua Sui Tong (Shook Lin & Bok) for the Third & Fourth Defendants

HEADNOTES

Civil Procedure

– Claims for interim payments – Whether any basis before the inquiry to speculate how much money is left in the estate – Whether claims must be made after the inquiry

Civil Procedure

– Mareva injunction – Application for discharge – Whether possibility of some not insubstantial amount of money in the estate which the first defendant had control over – Whether preservation order to be maintained

Civil Procedure

– Third Party Notice – Setting aside – Whether wrong to encourage a writ action within the narrow scope of an inquiry

Civil Procedure

– Application for opposing accountants to exchange reports and for inquiry to be conducted by an arbitrator – Whether hearing would be delayed

Facts

The original dispute was in respect of the assets of the estate of Ong Seng King. The outstanding matter is the inquiry to determine the estate in question and the second defendant’s share of the estate. The inquiry was scheduled to commence on 21 October 2002 but in the meantime, the parties filed eight summonses-in-chambers.

Held

, dismissing all but one summonses-in-chamber

(1) The first three applications for interim payments were dismissed because until the inquiry is done, there was no basis to speculate as to how much money is left in the estate. Moreover, it is a circuitous exercise to ask whether there is money in the estate when the whole purpose of the inquiry is precisely to determine that very point. Any claim must be made after the inquiry is concluded (see 2).

(2) In view of the refusal to allow interim payment, the fourth application to stop any interim payment became redundant, save for the question of costs which was reserved to the Registrar (see 3 and 7).

(3) The fifth application to discharge a Mareva injunction imposed earlier by this court against the first defendant was dismissed as, on the little evidence, there might be some not insubstantial sums of money in the estate in which the first defendant had control over. A preservation order should be maintained, subject only to any variation or other orders that the Registrar conducting the inquiry may make (see 4).

(4) The seventh application to set aside the Third Party Notice taken out by the second defendant against the first defendant was allowed. The notice was technically flawed in that it did not satisfy the requirements under O 16 of the Rules of Court. Moreover, the inquiry could not be expanded to cover related but obviously independent action that the second defendant might have against the first defendant. Nothing can be more calamitous, legally and procedurally, than to encourage a writ action within the narrow scope of an inquiry (see 5).

(5) The eighth application taken out by the first defendant for an order that the accountants for the main opposing camps exchange reports and for the inquiry to be conducted by an arbitrator was dismissed as it had come too late. It would only have the effect of delaying the hearing (see 6).

Legislation referred to

Rules of Court 1997, O 16

Judgment

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The original dispute in respect of the assets of the estate of Ong Seng King, had been heard and judgment handed down on 16 July 1996 by Justice Chao Hick Tin. The outstanding matter is the inquiry ordered by Justice Chao, principally, to determine the assets of the estate in question and the second defendant's share of the estate. The plaintiff's interest in the assets of the estate hinges on the half share of the second defendant's entitlement of the estate that was granted to her in the July 1996 judgment. The inquiry has been scheduled to commence on 21 October 2002. In the meantime, parties filed eight summonses-in-chambers before me. I dismissed all but one, and now give my grounds in one compendious judgment.

...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • May 16, 2012
    ...subsequent proceedings by the parties which resulted in five other judgments that were reported at: (i) [2002] 1 SLR(R) 798; (ii) [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1078; (iii) [2003] 1 SLR(R) 457; (iv) [2004] 4 SLR(R) 301; (v) [2008] 3 SLR(R) 189; and (vi) [2009] 2 SLR(R) 798. The court files reveal that the......
  • Ong Jane Rebecca v PricewaterhouseCoopers and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • May 16, 2012
    ...subsequent proceedings by the parties which resulted in five other judgments that were reported at: (i) [2002] 1 SLR(R) 798; (ii) [2002] 2 SLR(R) 1078; (iii) [2003] 1 SLR(R) 457; (iv) [2004] 4 SLR(R) 301; (v) [2008] 3 SLR(R) 189; and (vi) [2009] 2 SLR(R) 798. The court files reveal that the......
  • Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa (also known as Lim Le Hoa and Lily Arief Husni) and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • June 30, 2003
    ...orders should be maintained pending the inquiry, which was to begin less than 30 days away (see Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2002] 4 SLR 533 at paragraph 4). Counsel for the First, Third and Fourth Defendants informed me that they would be applying, in due course, to discharge the Mareva......

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