Tacplas Property Services v Lee: Validity of Property Sale Agreement by Co-Administrator
In Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, deceased), the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the validity of a property sale agreement entered into by one co-administratrix, Christina Lee, of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, with Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd. The High Court had declared the agreement invalid. The Court of Appeal considered whether a co-administrator could bind the estate without the consent of the other administrator and whether the respondent, Lee Peter Michael, was estopped from denying the agreement's validity. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the respondent was estopped from denying that the agreement is valid and binding on the estate.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Court of Appeal case regarding the validity of a property sale agreement signed by one co-administrator and whether the other co-administrator is estopped from denying its validity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, deceased) | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Goh Joon Seng | Judge | No |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| George Pereira | Pereira & Tan |
| Lok Vi Ming | Rodyk & Davidson |
4. Facts
- The deceased, Lee Chong Miow, passed away intestate on 4 July 1969.
- Martin Lee and Christina Lee were appointed as joint administrators of the estate, but the grant was never extracted.
- Martin Lee suffered a severe stroke and became incapable of managing his own affairs.
- Christina Lee purportedly entered into an agreement with Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd for the sale of property.
- The property was subject to an adverse possession claim by Wama bte Buang.
- The appellants bore the costs of the appeal against Wama bte Buang's claim and other adverse possession claims.
- The respondent was appointed as a co-administrator together with Christina Lee.
5. Formal Citations
- Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, deceased), CA 265/1998, [2000] SGCA 5
- Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Chong Miow, deceased), , [1999] 2 SLR 360
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lee Chong Miow passed away intestate | |
| Martin Lee petitioned for letters of administration | |
| Order appointing Martin Lee and Christina Lee as administrators was made | |
| Martin Lee suffered a severe stroke | |
| Christina Lee purportedly entered into an agreement with the appellants for the sale of property | |
| Appellants took possession of the property | |
| Respondent and his wife were appointed as the Committee of Martin Lee's Person and Estate | |
| Suit 1182/94 was dismissed | |
| Christina Lee and the respondent made an application to court to revoke the original grant of letters of administration and to appoint them as administrators of the estate | |
| Application to revoke the original grant of letters of administration was granted | |
| Suit 191/92 was dismissed | |
| Grant of the letters of administration was extracted | |
| Respondent commenced OS 611/98 against the appellants for a declaration on the validity or otherwise of the agreement | |
| Appellants stopped maintaining the property | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that administrators of an estate must act jointly and the act of one administrator cannot bind the estate, unless that act is ratified by all the administrators. The court also held that the agreement cannot bind the estate under the doctrine of relation back.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Authority of co-administrator to bind the estate
- Ratification of agreement by co-administrators
- Application of doctrine of relation back
- Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent was estopped from asserting that the agreement does not bind the estate.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Representation by silence
- Detrimental reliance
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration on the validity of the agreement
- Order compelling the administrators to file the necessary application for sanction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Declaration on the validity of the agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Probate
- Estate Administration
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hudson v Hudson | Court of Chancery | Yes | [1737] 1 Atk 460; 26 ER 292 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that one administrator cannot release a debt or convey an interest so as to bind the other administrator and that the position of an administrator was different from that of an executor. |
| Earl of Warwick v Greville | Court of Arches | Yes | [1809] 1 Philim 123 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court never forces a joint administration because administrators must join and be joined in every act. |
| Bell v Timiswood | Prerogative Court of Canterbury | Yes | [1812] 2 Phill Ecc 22; 161 ER 1066 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that co-administrators must act jointly. |
| Stanley v Bernes | Prerogative Court | Yes | [1828] 1 Hagg Ecc 221; 162 ER 564 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that administrators must always act jointly; they cannot, like executors, act independently. |
| Fountain Forestry Ltd v Edwards & Anor | Chancery Division | Yes | [1975] Ch 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that it was assumed, without deciding, that an administrator could act without the concurrence of the other administrator(s). |
| Smith v Everett | Court of Chancery | Yes | [1859] 29 LJ Ch 236 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that any two executors may settle an account; in fact, one may settle an account, and it binds the other. |
| Lee Martin & Anor v Wama bte Buang | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited as the case where the court allowed the appeal and dismissed Wama bte Buang`s claim. |
| Chia Foon Sian v Lam Chew Fah & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1955] 1 MLJ 203 | Malaysia | Cited for the holding that the act of one administrator binds the other. |
| Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff (administrator of the estate of Mohamed bin Ali, deceased) v Syed Salim Alhadad | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unlike the position of an administrator, the appointment of an executor was presumed to be founded upon the special confidence which the testator had in him. |
| Chay Chong Hwa & Ors v Seah Mary | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984-1985] SLR 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the authority of an administrator to deal with the property of the deceased stems from the extracted grant. |
| Chay Chong Hwa & Ors v Seah Mary | Privy Council | Yes | [1984] 2 MLJ 251 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the authority of an administrator to deal with the property of the deceased stems from the extracted grant. |
| Foster v Bates | Court of Exchequer | Yes | (1843) 12 M & W 226; 152 ER 1180 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the concept of `benefit` in this context is not confined to the mere prevention of injury to the estate or preservation of the property belonging to the estate. |
| Mills v Anderson | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1984] QB 704 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a settlement agreement reached by an administrator before he obtained the grant was not binding on him and that as the settlement was not beneficial to the estate, the doctrine of relation back did not apply. |
| Kechik & Ors v Habeeb Mohamed & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1963] MLJ 127 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the concept of `benefit` in this context is not confined to the mere prevention of injury to the estate or preservation of the property belonging to the estate. |
| Doe d Hornby v Glenn | Court of King's Bench | Yes | 1 Ad & E 49; 110 ER 1126 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a settlement agreement reached by an administrator before he obtained the grant was not binding on him. |
| Re Watson, ex p Phillips | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1886] 18 QBD 116 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the administrator was not obliged to pay as it must be shown not only that the services were for the benefit of the estate but that they were rendered under a contract with someone who subsequently by obtaining letters of administration became authorised to bind the estate, and ratified the contract. |
| The Leonidas D; Allied Marine Transport Ltd v Vale do Rio Doce Navegacao SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 925 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that it is difficult to imagine how silence and inaction can be anything but equivocal. |
| Fook Gee Finance Co Ltd v Liu Cho Chit and another action | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is difficult to imagine how silence and inaction can be anything but equivocal. |
| Greenwood v Martins Bank Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1933] AC 51 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where there is a duty to speak, silence could amount to a representation. |
| Spiro v Lintern | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1973] 1 WLR 1002 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if A sees B acting in the mistaken belief that A is under some binding obligation to him and in a manner consistent only with the existence of such an obligation, which would be to B`s disadvantage if A were thereafter to deny the obligation, A is under a duty to disclose the non-existence of the supposed obligation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 63) s 35(2) | Singapore |
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251) s 6(1) | Singapore |
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251) s 37 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Co-administrator
- Letters of administration
- Doctrine of relation back
- Estoppel
- Ratification
- Adverse possession
- Grant of administration
- Personal representative
- Committee of Person and Estate
15.2 Keywords
- Probate
- Administration
- Contract
- Property
- Estoppel
- Singapore
- Court of Appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Probate and Administration | 90 |
| Estoppel | 80 |
| Wills and Probate | 75 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Probate and Administration
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Equity
- Civil Procedure