Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong JA |
Judgment Date | 05 May 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGHC 95 |
Year | 2017 |
Date | 05 May 2017 |
Published date | 10 May 2017 |
Hearing Date | 13 March 2017,14 February 2017,15 February 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Andrew John Hanam (Andrew LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | The second defendant in person.,Kasi Ramalingam (Raj Kumar & Rama) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGHC 95 |
Docket Number | Suit No 651 of 2016 |
This is a claim brought by one of the two executors of the will of the late Ong Kim Nang (“the Testator”) against the first defendant for the unauthorised issuance of two cheques which resulted in the withdrawals of moneys from the Testator’s OCBC Bank Account No XXX-XXXXXX-001 (“the OCBC account”). The second defendant is the other executor of the said will (“the Will”) and was added as a necessary party as she was unwilling to provide her consent to be added as a plaintiff. All the parties in this action are siblings and children of the Testator. It should be stated at the outset that there is no dispute as regards the validity of the Will.
Under the Will, the Testator made specific provisions for the distribution of his estate to his wife, Mdm Tan Ai Cheng (“Mdm Tan”), and his seven children, including the parties to this action. In particular, he left all the moneys in his bank accounts to Mdm Tan absolutely. The first defendant claimed that
The pivotal issue is whether the burden is on the first defendant to
The Testator passed away on 28 May 2010. Under his Will dated 28 October 2003, the Testator gave all moneys held in his thirteen bank accounts and time deposits to Mdm Tan absolutely (subject to the right of survivorship operating in favour of any joint account holders).1 These moneys amounted to $2,606,077.19 in total, of which the moneys under the gift cheque and the trust cheque comprised about half.2
The Testator also gave life interests in the family property to Mdm Tan and the second defendant. Along with the first defendant’s family, they were living in the family property at the time of the Testator’s death. The interest in the remainder of the family property was to be divided equally among the plaintiff, the first defendant and the Testator’s sixth child, Ong Teck Huat. The residue of his estate, including shares in various Singapore and Malaysia listed companies, was also to be divided equally among the plaintiff, the first defendant and Ong Teck Huat.
Mdm Tan passed away on 25 November 2013.3 Under Mdm Tan’s will, the residue of her estate (including the moneys inherited from the Testator) is to be distributed equally among the plaintiff, the first defendant and Ong Teck Huat.4 It is undisputed that if the plaintiff prevails in this action, the sums will be restored to the Testator’s estate, paid into Mdm Tan’s estate and subsequently distributed to the beneficiaries under Mdm Tan’s will.
In this action, the plaintiff claims that the first defendant made unauthorised disposals of the following assets belonging to the Testator’s estate:
There is no dispute that the two cheques were drawn on the Testator’s OCBC account on 31 May 2010. It is also not disputed that the identity of the payees and the sums for the two cheques were filled in by the first defendant. The gift cheque was made out as a cash cheque and was dated 25 May 2010. It was encashed and deposited into the first defendant’s POSB Savings Account No XXX-XXX84-0 (“the first defendant’s POSB savings account”) at first instance. The trust cheque was made payable to Mdm Tan and was likewise dated 25 May 2010. It was initially deposited into DBS Bank Account No XXX-X-XXX320 which was jointly held by Mdm Tan and the first defendant’s wife (“Mdm Tan’s joint account”). On or about 9 July 2010, the sum of $615,000 was withdrawn from Mdm Tan’s joint account and deposited into POSB Bank Account No XXX-XXX51-0 belonging to the first defendant and his wife.
The only disputed factual issue in relation to the two cheques is whether the issuance of the two cheques and the withdrawals thereunder were authorised by the Testator as claimed by the first defendant. According to the first defendant, the Testator’s instructions were conveyed to him orally at the hospital on 25 May 2010 and he had prepared the cheques on those instructions in the Testator’s presence, without any other witnesses. The second defendant claims to have no personal knowledge of the Testator’s instructions even though she visited the Testator at the hospital daily during his last days.
The plaintiff commenced this suit after he discovered in November 2014 that the moneys under both cheques had been deposited into the first defendant’s POSB savings account and Mdm Tan’s joint account in May 2010. According to him, he found out about the withdrawals only sometime in May 2011 when the estate’s solicitors, Wee Swee Teow & Co, was preparing the schedule of assets for the Testator’s estate (“the Schedule of Assets”). The matter was revisited in 2014 when the family was preparing to apply for a grant of probate for Mdm Tan’s estate. It was then that the plaintiff obtained images of the two cheques upon the advice of the estate’s solicitors. It is worth noting that this account expressly contradicts the defendants’ narrative, namely that the first defendant had informed all his siblings of the Testator’s instructions at the Testator’s funeral on 2 June 2010.5 More will be said about this alleged disclosure below.
Rolex watches In addition to the moneys withdrawn under the two cheques, the plaintiff also seeks delivery up of the two Rolex watches. This claim was introduced pursuant to Amendment No 1 to the statement of claim. Under the Will, the two Rolex watches form part of the residue of the estate which is to be distributed equally among the plaintiff, the first defendant and Ong Teck Huat. The first defendant accepts that
A claim for an additional cheque of $20,000 was initially pleaded but was withdrawn by the plaintiff at the start of the trial
It is common ground that when the first defendant allegedly prepared the $20,000 cheque on 25 May 2010, he had intended to deposit this cheque into his own personal account and would thereafter issue his own personal cheque to reimburse Mr Oan for the $20,000.11 From Mr Oan’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”), this was in fact how he received the $20,000 – through a personal cheque issued from the first defendant’s account.12
The plaintiff dropped the claim in respect of this $20,000 cheque only after obtaining independent verification that $20,000 was in fact received by Mr Oan.13 It is necessary to emphasise that the plaintiff
The plaintiff’s claim in relation to the two cheques is based on the tort of conversion and/or an action for unjust enrichment. Initially, the plaintiff’s AEIC alleged that the issuance of the cheques was “unauthorised and
The essence of the plaintiff’s case is encapsulated in one terse pleading in the statement of claim: “the withdrawals of monies on the [two] cheques were made by the [first] [d]efendant and were unauthorized [
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil
...Hin Kay Albert [2017] 3 SLR 636 (“AAHG”), Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased v Ong Teck Seng and another [2017] 4 SLR 819 (“Ong Teck Soon”) and Compania De Navigacion Palomar, SA and others v Koutsos, Isabel Brenda [2020] SGHC 59 (“Koutsos”)). Indeed, in the fir......
-
Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil
...the plaintiffs’ counsel also relied upon Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased) v Ong Teck Seng and another [2017] 4 SLR 819 (“Ong Teck Soon”) with specific reference to the 11 (or 14) payments which the defendant asserted were “gifts”. One of the questions before ......
-
Uvh v Uvj
...Trading Corp Sdn Bhd v Interamerica Asia Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR(R) 896; [2002] 4 SLR 537 (refd) Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng [2017] 4 SLR 819 (distd) Regal (Hastings) Ltd v Gulliver [1967] 2 AC 134 (refd) Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623; [200......
-
Ok Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd v Ok Tedi Mining Ltd
...Branch v Bikash Dhamala [2021] 3 SLR 943 (refd) Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan [2012] 1 SLR 457 (folld) Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng [2017] 4 SLR 819 (refd) PT Sandipala Arthaputra v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2018] 1 SLR 818 (folld) Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd [1996......
-
A Pyrrhic Victory for Unjust Enrichment in Singapore? Esben Finance Ltd v Wong Hou‐Lianq Neil
...HC at [20], Esben ibid at [40].24 Esben HC at [133](e).25 AAHG LLC vHong Hin Kay Albert [2017] 3 SLR 636; Ong Teck Soon vOng Teck Seng [2017] 4SLR 819;Compania De Navigacion Palomar,SA vKoutsos,Isabel Brenda [2020] SGHC 59, discussedin Leow and Liau, n 14 above 359-362;cf Ok Tedi Fly River ......
-
Tort Law
...24 [2017] SGHC 82. 25 Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed. 26 Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed. 27 Von Roll Asia Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Gay [2017] SGHC 82 at [24]. 28 [2017] 4 SLR 819. 29 [2017] 5 SLR 1. 30 [2013] 4 SLR 308. 31 See OBG Ltd v Allan [2005] QB 762 (on appeal at OBG Ltd v Allan [2008] 1 AC 1). 32 [2017] 1 SLR......
-
Restitution
...(the status of “ignorance” and “lack of consent” as unjust factors under Singapore law was left open); Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng [2017] 4 SLR 819 (Steven Chong JA merely noted that the High Court in AAHG LLC v Hong Hin Kay Albert [2017] 3 SLR 636 applied “lack of consent” as an unjust f......
-
Restitution
...Jiaravanon v Simpson Marine (SEA) Pte Ltd [2017] SGHC 288 at [50]. 7 [2017] SGHC 8 at [186]. 8 [2017] SGHC 93 at [274] and [275]. 9 [2017] 4 SLR 819 at [24]. 10 [2013] 4 SLR 308 at [111]. 11 [2013] 3 SLR 801 at [139] and [166]–[168]. 12 [2017] 3 SLR 636 at [74] and [75]. 13 AAHG, LLC v Hong......