Yeoh Poh San v Won Siok Wan: Amendment of Defence & Illegality in Trust Claim

In Yeoh Poh San and Another v Won Siok Wan, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Defendant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to disallow her application to amend her Defence. The Plaintiffs, Yeoh Poh San and Choo Lee Chin, claimed that the Defendant, Won Siok Wan, held money in joint accounts on trust for the First Plaintiff. The Defendant sought to introduce new grounds of defence based on illegality and public policy, alleging that the funds were obtained illegally and transferred in contravention of Malaysian exchange control regulations. The court dismissed the appeal, citing prejudice to the Plaintiffs and the Defendant's prior knowledge of the facts underlying the proposed amendments.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's appeals dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding amendment of defence introducing illegality grounds late in trial. Court dismissed appeal, citing prejudice to plaintiffs and defendant's prior knowledge.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Yeoh Poh SanPlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Choo Lee ChinPlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowedWon
Won Siok WanDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
L KuppanchettiAlban Tay Mahtani & de Silva
Andre ArulArul Chew & Partners

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs claimed Defendant held money in joint accounts on trust for the First Plaintiff.
  2. Defendant was a live-in companion of the First Plaintiff for 20 years.
  3. Defendant withdrew substantial amounts from the joint accounts without authorization.
  4. Defendant claimed the money in the accounts belonged to her solely.
  5. Defendant alleged the funds were obtained illegally by the Plaintiffs.
  6. Defendant alleged the funds were transferred in contravention of Malaysian exchange control regulations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yeoh Poh San and Another v Won Siok Wan, Suit 12/2002, [2003] SGHC 101

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Statement of Claim filed
Defence filed
Defendant applied for depositions to be taken in Malaysia
Defendant applied for leave to amend her Defence
Applications heard by Assistant Registrar Teo Hsiao Huey and dismissed
Appeals dismissed and Defendant ordered to pay costs
Trial scheduled to commence
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court refused the amendment, finding it prejudicial to the Plaintiffs due to its lateness and the Defendant's prior knowledge of the facts.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Prejudice to other party
  2. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court held that even if the alleged acts of illegality were proven, the Plaintiffs did not have to rely on them to support their claim.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Contravention of Malaysian Exchange Control Act 1953
      • Violation of Malaysian Income Tax Act 1957
      • Unlawful arrangement under Malaysian Contracts Act 1950

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Trust
  2. Return of Money
  3. Inquiry

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ketteman v Hansel PropertiesN/AYes[1987] AC 189N/ACited for the principle that amendments should be allowed if they do not prejudice the other party and any injustice can be compensated by costs.
Wright Norman & Anor v OCBC LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR 513SingaporeCited for the principle that delay alone is not sufficient ground for refusing leave to amend unless accompanied by hardship or prejudice.
PP v Intra Group (Holdings) Co IncN/ANo[1999] 1 SLR 803SingaporeCited to support the point that the Plaintiffs did not have to rely on the alleged acts of illegality to support their claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 20 rule 5 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Malaysian Exchange Control Act 1953Malaysia
Malaysian Income Tax Act 1957Malaysia
Malaysian Contracts Act 1950Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Amendment of Defence
  • Illegality
  • Public Policy
  • Resulting Trust
  • Constructive Trust
  • Malaysian Exchange Control Act
  • Malaysian Income Tax Act
  • Malaysian Contracts Act

15.2 Keywords

  • Amendment of Defence
  • Illegality
  • Trust
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Amendment of Pleadings80
Civil Practice75
Trust Law60
Contract Law30
Estoppel25
Jurisdiction20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Trusts
  • Banking Law