Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee (alias Tan Kow Kwee)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon JC
• Judgment Date: 12 February 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 19
• Date: 12 February 2007
• Subject Matter: Sections 2(1), 22(1)(b), 23(a) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed),Estates of deceased,Limitation of Actions,Whether claim by beneficiary against personal representative may be barred by doctrine of laches where unconscionability on beneficiary's part existing,Whether s 22(1)(b) Limitation Act excluding application of limitation period,Particular causes of action,Whether limitation period under s 23(a) Limitation Act applying to claim concerning real estate,Equity and limitation of actions,Applicable principles,Doctrine of laches,When time begins to run,Whether beneficiary may stand by indefinitely and take no steps to assert claim on ground that time bar inapplicable because administration remaining uncompleted even though right to receive share or interest in estate accruing
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 995 of 2006
• Published date: 13 February 2007
• Defendant Counsel: L F Violet Netto (L F Violet Netto)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: V Ramakrishnan (V Ramakrishnan & Co)

12 February 2007 Judgment reserved.

Sundaresh Menon JC:

Introduction

1 The facts of this case are somewhat unusual in that they concern the administration of the estate of a gentleman, Mr Tan Kow Quee (“the deceased”) who died intestate just over 50 years ago on 10 October 1956. The deceased left five children but three of them, Tan Yee Tam, Tan Liang Quee and Tan Tong Quee, have since passed away. The two children who are still alive today are the plaintiffs in these proceedings, Tan Seet Kwee and Tan Quee Neo. The deceased’s wife had pre-deceased him and Letters of Administration for the estate were granted on 14 January 1957 to Tan Yee Tam and Tan Liang Quee. When Tan Liang Quee passed away on 12 July 1988, Tan Yee Tam remained as the sole administrator of the deceased’s estate until 1994 when he appointed his wife Tan Whay Eng, who is the 1^st defendant before me, as a co-administratrix. On 17 January 2002, Tan Yee Tam passed away and the 1^st defendant on 2 June 2003 pursuant to an order of court, appointed their son Tan Khim Heng, who is the 2^nd defendant before me, as a co-administrator of the deceased’s estate.

The factual background

2 It was not in dispute that:

(a) The deceased’s assets at the time of his death consisted of a bank account with a balance of $5,343.61 and a residential property now known as 2 Wiltshire Road, Singapore 466378 (“the property”) and valued at that time at $4,000;

(b) The deceased’s funeral expenses amounting to $467.18 were settled;

(c) The value of the estate at that time nett of expenses was $8,876.43;

(d) There had been at least a partial distribution, to some of the beneficiaries, of the cash balance at the bank; and

(e) The 1^st defendant and her family have occupied the property at all material times.

3 Save as aforesaid, most other factual points were disputed. The plaintiffs (who were supported in this application by the next-of-kin of Tan Liang Quee and Tan Tong Quee) claim that the property and a part of the cash balance in the bank account were not distributed by Tan Yee Tam. By the present proceedings, they seek a declaration that the property forms a part of the deceased’s estate and they further seek an order of sale in respect of the property and consequential orders for the proceeds to be distributed.

4 The plaintiffs’ principal factual contentions may be summarised thus:

(a) The administration of the deceased’s estate had not been completed at the time of Tan Yee Tam’s death;

(b) The property had been occupied by the 1^st defendant and her family without any payment of rent since 1956;

(c) The deceased’s funeral expenses amounting to $467.18 were initially met by the plaintiffs’ uncle and were then charged to the estate;

(d) The same uncle instructed Tan Yee Tam to distribute the cash in the bank account but this was only partially carried out;

(e) The property was not taken into account at the time of the distribution;

(f) Tan Yee Tam and his wife were evicted from the property by the deceased during his lifetime but they returned after his death. There was friction among the family members allegedly generated by Tan Yee Tam and the 1^st defendant;

(g) The subject of the property was brought up with the 1^st defendant after the death of Tan Yee Tam in 2002 but she brushed this aside;

(h) The plaintiffs are unaware of any renovation to the property having been done by Tan Yee Tam or by the defendants during the time they have been in occupation.

5 Further, one Jenny Low, whose deceased husband was the son of Tan Liang Quee, deposed that she had learnt from her late husband that his father had only had a partial cash distribution made to him. It was not stated when this had taken place. She also referred to some correspondence between Tan Liang Quee and the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) where the former had stated that he had a one-fifth interest in the property. The HDB then granted him an exemption from certain provisions of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 271, 1970 Rev Ed) on the basis that he could not “recover [the interest in the property] for [his] own use”.

6 It is significant that there is no assertion in any of the affidavits filed on behalf of the plaintiffs that the subject of the property had been raised or discussed with the defendants or with Tan Yee Tam at any time between 1956 and 2002. Further, the evidence before me suggests that the matter was first raised in writing when the plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to the 1^st defendant on 17 February 2006. There is no documentary evidence to suggest that any steps had been taken prior to this, by the plaintiffs or any of those claiming to be beneficiaries, to require the defendants or Tan Yee Tam to distribute their claimed share in the property.

7 As against this, the principal factual contentions advanced on behalf of the defendants may be summarised thus:

(a) The 1^st defendant married Tan Yee Tam in 1951. They lived at the property with the deceased and with Tan Yee Tam’s siblings.

(b) Tan Liang Quee and Tan Quee Neo got married and moved out. Then in 1956, the deceased passed away. Shortly after that Tan Tong Quee collected his share of the deceased’s estate and moved out.

(c) The 1^st defendant stated that she had been informed by her husband, Tan Yee Tam that each of his siblings had received their share of the estate in cash. She also produced copies of letters addressed to Tan Tong Quee, Tan Liang Quee and Tan Seet Quee which indicated that there had been a distribution of certain sums and in each case stating that the “amount was claimed by me in full, being the share which was divided equally … from the estate of [the deceased]”. One of these letters was addressed to Tan Seet Kwee, the 1^st plaintiff, who did not deny the authenticity of the letter or that it had been sent but merely made the following observation:

With regard to the 3 receipts … that (sic) appears to be unsigned unwitnessed and undated and therefore have no evidentiary value but in any event this only has reference to the cash … and nothing to do with the property.

(d) The property continued to be occupied by Tan Yee Tam and his family. Substantial renovations were carried out in 1977 and in 2004 entailing expenditure of $30,000 and $90,000 respectively. Although no invoices were produced, photographs of the premises were included in the evidence before me and it was plain that reasonably substantial expenditure had been incurred at some stage. It may be noted that the property had been described as an “attap house” in earlier documents and the photographs plainly show that it could no longer be described as such.

(e) The estate had been distributed. The defendants contend that it is untenable to suggest that Tan Yee Tam had not distributed the estate given the passage of time prior to the present proceedings without any action being brought to advance a claim for further distribution. Further, until his death in 1988, Tan Liang Quee had been a co-administrator. No suggestion had ever been advanced throughout those years to suggest that the beneficiaries were entitled to anything more than they had been paid.

(f) Instead the issue was raised for the first time after the death of Tan Yee Tam and Tan Liang Quee.

(g) As to the declaration made by Tan Liang Quee to the HDB, this was done to obtain the relevant exemption given that as a co-administrator his name had been registered against the property.

8 In approaching the factual issues in the case it bears noting that the burden of proof is upon the plaintiffs to make out their case. In particular, the plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the property remains a part of the estate and is liable to be distributed. Assuming they succeed in this, then the next issue is whether the claim is nonetheless barred by virtue of any applicable provision in the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) and/or by virtue of the equitable doctrine of laches. I turn to consider each of these issues.

Does the property form a part of the estate?

9 The plaintiffs rely upon the fact that at the time of the deceased’s passing away, the property clearly formed a part of his estate. That much is beyond dispute. However, beyond that there is no direct evidence squarely on the point and one is then left to consider what proper inferences may be drawn from the objective facts. The relevant facts are these:

(a) The 1^st defendant and her family have occupied the property without challenge or interruption for at least 46 years (assuming one accepts the plaintiffs’ contention that the matter was raised with her orally after Tan Yee Tam’s death) or 50 years if one goes on the basis of the documents;

(b) For much of that time, there was a co-administrator from a different branch of the family i.e. Tan Liang Quee, and there is nothing to suggest that at any time he challenged the claimed interest of Tan Yee Tam and his family in the property. This is especially significant if, as the plaintiffs allege, there were tensions between Tan Yee Tam’s family and the others;

(c) Some distributions did take place. However, the evidence did not establish with any precision just what was distributed, when, to whom and on what basis. Yet, no steps appear to have been taken to assert any rights in respect of the property at any time in the context of these distributions, or for that matter, throughout the period I have referred to at (a) above;

(d) The issue was first raised after the death of both the original administrators of the deceased’s estate; and

(e) A substantial sum of money has been expended by the 1^st defendant’s family on the property.

10 In my judgment, the proper inference that is to be drawn from these facts is that the property had been taken into account in a consensual arrangement between all the children of the deceased. The utter lack of any steps having been taken by any of the beneficiaries to assert their claims for such a long period of time renders it highly...