UXA v UXB and UXC

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Nicole Loh
• Judgment Date: 11 June 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGFC 63
• Court: Family Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: FC/OSP No. 20 of 2017
• Year: 2019
• Published date: 14 June 2019
• Hearing Date: 27 February 2019,23 October 2018,12 February 2019,18 December 2018
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Aaron Ng Yung Thye (M/s United Legal Alliance LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Chugani Ashok Kan (M/s Mirchandani & Partners)
• Citation: [2019] SGFC 63

District Judge Nicole Loh: Background

This case essentially revolved around a dispute between the Administrator of an Estate and the Beneficiaries of the Estate. The Administrator sought orders to enable her to withdraw and make payments towards debts and expenses of the Estate. The Beneficiaries sought orders for the Administrator to return monies she had withdrawn into the Estate.

The Administrator was the life partner of the Deceased and the Beneficiaries are the parents of the Deceased.

Salient portions of the applications for the appeal

It is not necessary to set out the full extent of the applications between parties. The relevant claims for the purposes of the appeal are: the Administrator had applied for a repayment of an alleged loan of $110,110 owed by the Estate to herself as a creditor. This was disputed by the Beneficiaries. The Beneficiaries sought the return of the Deceased’s mobile phone and laptop from the Administrator.

Chronology of hearings

The sequence of hearings is important for the purposes of this appeal.

Date	Hearing	Remarks
23 October 2018	1st hearing	Orders were made for some of the prayers, which included the repayment of the alleged $110,110 loan. As the matter was part heard and further orders will be made at the next hearing for the other prayers, Parties were directed to only extract the orders together with the orders to be made at the next hearing so that they do not need to extract so many court orders. It was also indicated to counsel that time for appeal for the orders made on 23 October 2018 will run from the next hearing together with the other orders that will be made.
18 December 2018	2nd hearing	Orders were made for the remaining prayers. 2 issues were adjourned: a) return of the mobile phone and laptop. I gave parties an indication that this issue should be resolved privately instead of bringing it to Court. They were to take their clients’ instructions to try to achieve this. b) Issue of cost for the applications as both counsel asked to be given time to research the relevant case law to provide submissions on cost.
12 February 2019	3rd hearing	The Plaintiff Administrator changed counsel. However, the new counsel is in a position of conflict. The hearing was adjourned for Plaintiff to appoint new counsel.
27 February 2019	4th hearing	Plaintiff’s original counsel is re-appointed, albeit under a different law firm. A consent order was recorded for the issue relating to the mobile phone and laptop. Cost order was made after

...