Re Kornrat Sriponnok

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 March 2015
• Date: 30 March 2015
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 842 of 2014
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Re Kornrat Sriponnok

[2015] SGHC 81

Choo Han Teck J

Originating Summons No 842 of 2014

High Court

Evidence—Proof of evidence—Presumptions—Applicant seeking declaration that Thai national be presumed dead—Whether alleged deceased had been heard of within past seven years—Whether applicant fell within category of persons who would naturally have heard of her if she had been alive

Ho Kum Kok (‘the applicant’) sought a declaration that one Kornrat Sriponnok (‘Kornrat’) be presumed dead under s 110 of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’). The applicant's brother, Ho Kum Yuen, married Kornrat on 18 October 2001. They did not stay together after the marriage, and lost contact with each other after May 2002. Ho Kum Yuen died on 6 February 2012 leaving money in his Central Provident Fund (‘CPF’) account and without a nomination as to the beneficiary. This meant that in the absence of a will, the widow, Kornrat, will be entitled to the money. The applicant sought to obtain a declaration of presumption of death of Kornrat under s 110 of the Act, to support his application to obtain the funds in the CPF account.

Held, dismissing the application:

(1) Section 109 provided that the burden of proving that a person was dead lay with the person asserting. Section 110 only shifted the burden of proof from the person asserting death to the person asserting that the ‘alleged dead person’ was alive: at [4] and [5] .

(2) In order to shift the burden of proof, two elements needed to be satisfied - first, that the ‘alleged dead person’ had not been heard of for seven years, and second, that the ‘alleged dead person’ had not been heard of by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive. This would include persons related to the ‘alleged dead person’ either ‘by virtue of blood or marital ties’, but would also depend on the nature of such ties: at [5] .

(3) In this case, though Kornrat had not been heard of for seven years, the applicant as a third-party outsider did not fall within the category of persons who would naturally have heard of Kornrat if she were alive: at [6] .

(4) To prove that Kornrat was dead, the applicant needed to satisfy the court that all due and sufficient steps and inquiries had been made to establish whether she was alive. But the applicant had no evidence whatsoever. The fact that Kornrat could not be contacted was not proof that she was dead. She was a Thai national and might still be alive...