Terence Yeo Guan Chye and Another v Lau Siew Kim

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 08 December 2006
• Neutral Citation: [2006] SGHC 227
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2006
• Published date: 11 December 2006
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lim Chor Pee (Chor Pee & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Chew Swee Leng (as counsel) with Sng Kheng Huat (Sng & Co)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Pleadings,Further amendments to statement of claim on last day of trial,Whether prejudicial to defendants,Whether prejudice could be compensated by costs
• Citation: [2006] SGHC 227

8 December 2006

Lai Siu Chiu J

1 These grounds of decision relate to an application by the plaintiffs to further amend their statement of claim on the last day of trial. The defendant opposed the application and has now appealed against my decision (in Civil Appeal No. 113 of 2006) in granting the application.

2 The plaintiffs are two brothers Terence and Theodore Yeo. The defendant Lau Siew Kim is the widow and was the third wife, of the plaintiffs’ late father Tommy Yeo Hock Seng (“the deceased”) who died on 23 November 2004 after suffering a heart attack.

3 The plaintiffs’ mother Iris Chong (“Iris”) married the deceased in 1959 (“the first marriage”); the plaintiffs are the children of that first marriage. The first marriage ended in an acrimonious divorce which was granted in August 1988, on the deceased’s divorce petition filed in September 1987; Iris obtained custody of the first and second plaintiffs who were then aged 13 and 17 respectively. Iris brought up the plaintiffs who did not have much contact with the deceased in their growing years and who (according to the plaintiffs) did not contribute financially towards their upbringing. It was the defendant’s case that the deceased was estranged from the plaintiffs after the first marriage ended in divorce.

4 The deceased’s education at St Andrew’s School was only up to a school certificate. After he left school, the deceased took up an accounting course by self-study and obtained a certificate from the Association of Certified Accountants that qualified him to be an auditor. The deceased however did not have regular employment during his lifetime. He preferred to do business to which intent and purpose, he started a business called TY Batik in 1970 which eventually folded up, due to the 1986 recession.

5 In 1981, the deceased met Ng Ah Mui (“Ng”), a Malaysian employed by TY Batik and eventually married her in 1989 (“the second marriage”). The couple had no children and the second marriage also ended in an acrimonious divorce in or about 1996, based again on a divorce petition filed by the deceased.

6 The deceased was however luckier in his property investments than in his marriages. He was the youngest amongst his siblings (which included his older brother Donald Yeo, a former lawyer) and his late mother left to him solely her property at No. 26 Thrift Drive (“the Thrift Drive property”) without any encumbrances.

7 The deceased sold the Thrift Drive property for $330,000 in 1987 and used the sale proceeds to acquire a bigger house at No. 9 Sennett Lane (“the Sennett Lane property”) at the price of $317,000. The Sennett Lane property was valued at $450,000 by United Malayan Banking Corporation (“UMBC”) and this enabled the deceased to obtain banking facilities to pay for the operations of TY Batik.

8 In 1989 the deceased sold the Sennett Lane property for $845,000 with planning approval for two semi-detached houses.

9 After selling the Sennett Lane property, the deceased bought in 1990, for $470,000, No.33 Fowlie Road (“the Fowlie Road property”) which was then a dilapidated bungalow. After its purchase, the deceased rented out the Fowlie Road property and lived on the rental income. He resided at a Housing & Development Board flat situated at Block 202, Marsiling Drive #06-134, Singapore 730202 (“the Marsiling flat”). He was ordered by the courts to transfer the Marsiling flat to Ng in their divorce proceedings in 1996.

10 According to the defendant’s own testimony, she first met the deceased in December 1993 through an introduction. He was then 49 years of age while she was 35 years old and by her own admission, a spinster. The defendant moved in with the deceased in or about 1995 and lived with him at the Marsiling flat before the deceased’s divorce from Ng was finalised.

11 On 20 May 1996, the deceased made a new Will (“the second Will”) to replace a previous Will dated 28 January 1992 in which the first plaintiff was named as his sole beneficiary. The second Will appointed the defendant as the sole executor and named her the sole beneficiary, of the deceased’s estate.

12 The defendant went to England in September 1998 to continue on a fulltime basis, her studies in accounting, which course she had started on a part-time basis in Singapore, while she was working at various jobs sometimes simultaneously (which jobs the plaintiffs described as ‘lowly’). The deceased supported her and paid for the defendant’s studies while she was in England. The defendant returned to Singapore in July 1998 after graduating with a bachelor’s degree in accounting.

13 The deceased and the defendant were married on 18 December 2000. Prior thereto, in April 2000, the couple purchased jointly an executive flat from the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (“the HUDC”) situated at No. 149, Hougang Street 11 #10-136, Minton Rise, Singapore (“the Minton Rise property”) for $495,000, using a loan of $396,000 from Standard Chartered Bank (“the SCB loan”) and withdrawals from the defendant’s CPF savings. In December 2000, the defendant for the first time found employment as an accountant. The Minton Rise property was the couple’s matrimonial home until the demise of the deceased. The defendant still resides there. According to the defendant, she is servicing the monthly mortgage instalments of $2,100 on the SCB loan, partly through her CPF contributions and partly by cash; she also pays the monthly conservancy charges. The HUDC estate in which the Minton Rise property is located has since been privatised and there is a possibility of the entire estate being sold en bloc.

14 In June 2000, the deceased had mortgaged the Fowlie Road property to SCB, for a loan of $1.2m (“the SCB loan”) repayable over 25 years. The deceased and the defendant were joint borrowers. The SCB loan was used to discharge the existing mortgage of United Overseas Bank (“UOB”) on the Fowlie Road property, which was security for a loan that the deceased had previously obtained from UOB. Rental from the Fowlie Road property serviced the mortgage instalments of SCB.

15 The deceased decided to and did, redevelop the Fowlie Road property into two semi-detached houses, using a fresh construction loan and overdraft facilities (jointly the “the UOB loan”) totalling $2.218m from UOB. Both he and the defendant were joint borrowers of the UOB loan.

16 After completion in August 2003, the two semi-detached houses were numbered 33 and 35 Fowlie Road. No. 33 Fowlie Road was sold in February 2004 for $1.828m and the sale proceeds were used to discharge the UOB loan. No. 35 Fowlie Road remains unsold although it was completed in 2003. The defendant explained it was because she and the deceased intended to reside there. However, after its completion, the couple discovered that the 3½ storey house was too big for their needs. Both houses were owned by the deceased.

17 In March 2004, the deceased purchased another property at No. 18 Jalan Tari Payong (“the Tari Payong property”) for $1.1m as joint tenants with the defendant; an old single storey bungalow was on the site. The couple borrowed $770,000 from UOB repayable over 17 years, to part-finance the purchase.

18 As with the Fowlie Road property, the deceased demolished the existing house on the Tari Payong property and constructed two semi-detached houses on the site, which became known as Nos. 18 and 18A Jalan Tari Payong respectively. Construction of the two houses started in June 2004 and was scheduled to be completed by end 2005. As at the date of demise of the deceased, the two houses were not completed. They were eventually completed in 2005 and were sold thereafter. The defendant was the sole registered owner of both houses. She testified in court that as she had learnt the ropes from the deceased when he developed the two semi-detached houses at Nos. 33 and 35 Fowlie Road, the deceased left her to take charge of and oversee the construction of Nos. 18 and 18A Jalan Tari Payong.

19 In August 2005, the defendant received notice from the Singapore Land Authority (“SLA”) advising that the plaintiffs had lodged a caveat on the Tari Payong property (“the caveat”) on 20 August 2005. Upon inspection of the caveat by her solicitors, the defendant discovered that the plaintiffs claimed to have an interest as beneficiaries of the estate of the deceased.

20 The defendant’s solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs’ solicitors to request for the withdrawal of the caveat. The request was not acceded to. As a result, the defendant applied by Originating Summons No. 1258 of 2005 (“the first OS”) for the removal of the caveat.

21 The defendant was further notified by the SLA that on 23 August 2005 the plaintiffs had lodged another caveat against the Minton Rise property (”the second caveat”). A search on the second caveat by the defendant’s solicitors revealed that the plaintiffs also claimed an interest in the Minton Rise property as beneficiaries of the deceased.

22 On 27 August 2005, the defendant’s solicitors again wrote to the plaintiffs solicitors to request that the second caveat be removed. When the request was not acceded to, the defendant’s solicitors applied by Originating Summons No. 1259 of 2005 (“the second OS”) for the removal of the second caveat.

23 On 4 October...