Lum Kai Heng v Quek Peng Chai: Dispute Over Joint Bank Account Ownership After Death

Lum Kai Heng filed an action against Quek Peng Chai, Quek Lee Tiam, Keppel Tat Lee Bank Limited, and Saranya Sae-Ngow in the High Court of Singapore, regarding the ownership of funds in joint bank accounts after the death of Lum Kai Heng's husband, Quek Cheok Boon. The plaintiff sought declarations that certain sums of money belonged to her and not the deceased's estate. The plaintiff appealed against the decision to dismiss her application to amend the Statement of Claim. The court dismissed the appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over ownership of funds in joint bank accounts after one account holder died. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal to amend the statement of claim.

1.7 Decision Date

26 March 2001

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Quek Peng Chai	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Won	Tan Cheng Han of Tan Cheng Yew & Partners
Saranya Sae-Ngow	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Won	Kelvin Tan of Drew & Napier
Lum Kai Heng	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Lost	K S Chung of Chung & Co
Quek Lee Tiam	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal dismissed	Won	Tan Cheng Han of Tan Cheng Yew & Partners
Keppel Tat Lee Bank Limited	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Appeal dismissed	Won	Alan Wong Hoi Ping of William Lai & Alan Wong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kan Ting Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Cheng Han	Tan Cheng Yew & Partners
Kelvin Tan	Drew & Napier
K S Chung	Chung & Co
Alan Wong Hoi Ping	William Lai & Alan Wong

4. Facts

Plaintiff and her deceased husband held four joint accounts.
Plaintiff withdrew funds from two joint accounts before the grant of probate.
First and Second Defendants, as executors, claimed the withdrawn monies belonged to the deceased's estate.
Plaintiff withdrew $1,401,322.67 and made it payable to the First and Second Defendants, but later claimed the monies as her property.
Plaintiff alleged that an employee of the Third Defendant made fraudulent representations.
Funds were transferred from Plaintiff's accounts to an account in the joint names of the First, Second, and Fourth Defendants.
Plaintiff sought to amend her Statement of Claim to include claims of fraud, malice, and conspiracy.

5. Formal Citations

Lum Kai Heng v Quek Peng Chai and Others, Suit 600228/2000, RA 600263/2000, [2001] SGHC 61

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1998-02-17	Plaintiff withdrew $1,183,266.80 from POSB account No. 028-19153-7 and deposited it into account No. 125-05785-3.
1998-02-18	Quek Cheok Boon died.
1998-02-18	Plaintiff withdrew $218,055.87 from UOB account No. 116-127-140-9 and deposited it into account No. 126/110/722/3.
1998-02-24	Plaintiff withdrew $218,055.87 from account No. 126/110/722/3 and deposited it into POSB account No. 125-05785-3.
1998-08-06	Plaintiff signed nine sheets of paper bearing the Third Defendant's letter-head.
1998-09-04	Third Defendant transferred $588,000 from account No. 24-30156-4 and paid it into account No. 24-72217-9.
1998-09-07	Third Defendant transferred $500,000 from account No. 86219001 to account No. 24-72217-9.
1999-09-17	Grant of probate for the deceased's estate was made in favour of the First and Second Defendants.
2000-02-29	Plaintiff's action against the First, Second and Third Defendants was filed.
2000-05-29	Application filed by the Plaintiff to add the Fourth Defendant as a party and to amend the Statement of Claim.
2000-10-31	Appeal came on for hearing.
2001-03-27	Appeal dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Amendment of Statement of Claim
- Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision to disallow the Plaintiff's application to amend the Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Absence of particulars of fraud
  - Relevance of proposed amendments to the real question of controversy
Beneficial Ownership of Joint Accounts
- Outcome: The court noted that the essential question is whether the monies in the joint accounts belonged to the Plaintiff or the deceased's estate.
- Category: Substantive
Fraud, Malice and Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the proposed amendments alleging fraud, malice, and conspiracy were defective due to the absence of particulars.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declarations that the funds belong to the Plaintiff
Repayment of the funds to the Plaintiff

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Trust
Fraud
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Banking Litigation

11. Industries

Banking

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Weldon v. Neal	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	Weldon v. Neal (1887) 19 Q.B.D. 394	England and Wales	Cited regarding adding a claim for special damage when proof of special damage is essential to the cause of action.
Att.-Gen. v. West Ham Corp.	Court of Appeal	Yes	Att.-Gen. v. West Ham Corp. (1910) 74 J.P. 196, CA	England and Wales	Cited regarding adding a new claim which is so germane to, and so connected with, the original cause of action, that it would be a denial of justice if leave to add it were refused.
Astrovlanis Compania Naviera SA v. Linard	Queen's Bench	Yes	Astrovlanis Compania Naviera SA v. Linard [1972] 2 Q.B. 611	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that litigation should be conducted fairly, openly, without surprises, and so as to minimise costs.
Duke v. Wisden	N/A	Yes	Duke v. Wisden (1897) 77 L.T. 67	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to inform the other side of the nature of the case that they have to meet.
Young & Co. v. Scottish Union Co.	N/A	Yes	Young & Co. v. Scottish Union Co. (1907) 24 T.L.R. 73	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to inform the other side of the nature of the case that they have to meet.
Aga Khan v. Times Publishing Co.	King's Bench	Yes	Aga Khan v. Times Publishing Co. [1924] 1 K.B. 675	England and Wales	Cited for the function of particulars to inform the other side of the nature of the case that they have to meet.
Spedding v. Fitzpatrick	N/A	Yes	Spedding v. Fitzpatrick (1888) 38 Ch.D. 410	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial.
Thomson v. Birkley	N/A	Yes	Thomson v. Birkley (1882) 31 W.R. 230	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to prevent the other side from being taken by surprise at the trial.
Thorp v. Holdsworth	N/A	Yes	Thorp v. Holdsworth (1876) 3 Ch.D. 637	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to enable the other side to know with what evidence they ought to be prepared and to prepare for trial.
Elkington v. London Association for the Protection of Trade	N/A	Yes	Elkington v. London Association for the Protection of Trade (1911) 27 T.L.R. 329	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to enable the other side to know with what evidence they ought to be prepared and to prepare for trial.
Saunders v. Jones	N/A	Yes	Saunders v. Jones (1877) 7 Ch.D. 435	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to limit the generality of the pleadings.
Milbank v. Milbank	N/A	Yes	Milbank v. Milbank [1900] 1 Ch. 376	N/A	Cited for the function of particulars to limit the generality of the claim or the evidence and to limit and define the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required.
Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Co. v. Gilbert	Queen's Bench	Yes	Yorkshire Provident Life Assurance Co. v. Gilbert [1895] 2 Q.B. 148	England and Wales	Cited for the function of particulars to limit and define the issues to be tried, and as to which discovery is required.
Philipps v. Philipps	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	Philipps v. Philipps (1878) 4 Q.B.D. 127	England and Wales	Cited for the function of particulars to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not included.
Woolley v. Broad	Queen's Bench	Yes	Woolley v. Broad [1892] 2 Q.B. 317	England and Wales	Cited for the function of particulars to tie the hands of the party so that he cannot without leave go into any matters not included.
Dean of Chester v. Smelting Corp.	N/A	Yes	Dean of Chester v. Smelting Corp. [1902] W.N. 5	N/A	Cited regarding evidence may be given which supports any material allegation in the pleadings if the opponent omits to ask for particulars.
Hewson v. Cleve	N/A	Yes	Hewson v. Cleve [1904] 2 Ir.R. 536	N/A	Cited regarding evidence may be given which supports any material allegation in the pleadings if the opponent omits to ask for particulars.
Wallingford v Mutual Society	N/A	Yes	Wallingford v Mutual Society (1880) 5 App. Cas 685	N/A	Cited for the principle that general allegations, however strong may be the words in which they are stated, are insufficient even to amount to an averment of fraud of which any Court ought to take notice.
G.L. Baker Ltd v. Medway Building & Supplies Ltd	N/A	Yes	G.L. Baker Ltd v. Medway Building & Supplies Ltd [1958] 1 W.L.R. 1216	N/A	Cited for the principle that amendments ought to be made for the purpose of determining the real question in controversy between the parties.
Clarapede v Commercial Union Association	N/A	Yes	Clarapede v Commercial Union Association (1883) 32 WR 262	N/A	Cited regarding an amendment should be allowed if it can be made without injustice to the other side and there is no injustice if the other side can be compensated by costs.
Wood v. Earl of Durham	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	Wood v. Earl of Durham (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 501	England and Wales	Cited regarding the Court will always look at the materiality of the proposed amendment.
Sinclair v. James	N/A	Yes	Sinclair v. James [1894] 3 Ch. 554	N/A	Cited regarding an inconsistent or useless amendment will not be allowed.
Durham v. Robertson	Queen's Bench	Yes	Durham v. Robertson [1898] 1 Q.B. 765	England and Wales	Cited regarding an inconsistent or useless amendment will not be allowed.
Bevan v. Barnett	N/A	Yes	Bevan v. Barnett (1897) 13 T.L.R. 310	N/A	Cited regarding an inconsistent or useless amendment will not be allowed.
C.H. Pearce and Sons Ltd v. Storechester Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	C.H. Pearce and Sons Ltd v. Storechester Ltd (1983) The Times, November 17, CA	England and Wales	Cited regarding an inconsistent or useless amendment will not be allowed.
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189	England and Wales	Cited regarding the principles applicable to amendments of pleadings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court Order 18 rule 12(1)(a)	Singapore
Rules of Court Order 18 rule 12(1)(b)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Joint banking accounts
Grant of probate
Beneficial ownership
Fraudulent representations
Malicious conspiracy
Amendment of pleadings
Particulars of fraud
Survivorship
Cashier's order
Executors
Statement of Claim

15.2 Keywords

joint accounts
probate
fraud
conspiracy
amendment
pleadings

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	90
Fraud and Deceit	80
Joint Accounts	75
Contract Law	70
Property Law	60
Banking and Finance	50
Trust Law	40
Company Law	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Banking
Civil Procedure