Kamla Lal Hiranand v Lal Hiranand: Summons in Chambers, Consent Order & Originating Summons Dispute

In Kamla Lal Hiranand (m.w.) v Lal Hiranand, the Singapore High Court heard two summons-in-chambers related to Originating Summons No 1893 of 1999. The plaintiff, Kamla Lal Hiranand, sought to compel the defendant, Lal Hiranand, to account for ‘Trust Property’ defined in a will. The court dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that a summons-in-chambers was the improper procedure for the relief sought, especially given the disputes over material facts and the prior consent order. The court made no orders in respect of the defendant's summons-in-chambers.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application by way of Summons-in-Chambers No 601562 of 2002 was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Kamla Lal Hiranand's application to compel Lal Hiranand to account for trust property, finding the summons-in-chambers was the wrong procedure.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lal HiranandDefendantIndividualNo orders madeNeutral
Kamla Lal Hiranand (m.w.)PlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenneth TanSant Singh Partnership
Parveen Kaur NagpalSant Singh Partnership
Siva MurugaiyanSant Singh Partnership
Michael HwangRamdas & Wong
Constance TayRamdas & Wong
Roslina BabaRamdas & Wong

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is the wife of the defendant.
  2. The plaintiff sought to compel the defendant to take an account of the ‘Trust Property’ defined in the 1988 Will.
  3. The 1988 Will purportedly bequeathed the estate of MHR in trust for the benefit of the plaintiff to the extent of 25% and the defendant 25%.
  4. The assistant registrar held that the 1988 Will was not capable of creating a trust.
  5. The High Court judge dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal immediately after recording a consent order in respect of this originating summons.
  6. The defendant’s counter-summons-in-chambers sought to set aside the order of court of 8 December 1999 on the basis of duress and undue influence.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kamla Lal Hiranand (m.w.) v Lal Hiranand, OS 1893/1999, SIC 601562/2002, 600208/2003, Suit 354/2003, [2003] SGHC 171

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani subscribed to the Last Will of Manghanmal Hiranand Ramchandani
Deed made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant
Suit No 349 of 1999 filed
Originating Summons No 1893 of 1999 was filed
Consent order recorded before the High Court judge
Summons-in-Chambers No 601562 of 2002 taken by the plaintiff
Summons-in-Chambers No 600208 of 2003 taken by the defendant
Suit 354/2003
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Proper mode of application
    • Outcome: The court held that a summons-in-chambers is the wrong procedure to seek relief of the sort that is being made here.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether further applications may be made by way of summons-in-chambers where originating summons has been fully heard and finally disposed of
      • Whether originating summons suitable where material facts in dispute
  2. Interpretation of Consent Order
    • Outcome: The court found that the liberty to apply clauses did not apply to the plaintiff's application.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of 'liberty to apply' clause

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order to compel the defendant to take an account of the ‘Trust Property’

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Christel v ChristelN/AYes[1951] 2 KB 725N/ACited regarding the purpose of a ‘liberty to apply’ clause.
Koh Ewe Chee v Koh Hua Leong & AnorN/AYes[2002] 3 SLR 643SingaporeCited regarding the purpose of a ‘liberty to apply’ clause.
N/ACourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR 696SingaporeCited to explain why the plaintiff's summons-in-chambers was hopeless from the start, specifically regarding the validity of the 1988 will.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Summons-in-chambers
  • Originating summons
  • Consent order
  • Liberty to apply
  • Trust property
  • 1988 Will
  • Deed of 28 May 1999

15.2 Keywords

  • Summons in chambers
  • originating summons
  • consent order
  • trust
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Trust Law60
Contract Law40
Wills30
Estoppel25
Undue Influence20
Mistake15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Trusts
  • Originating Summons
  • Summons in Chambers
  • Consent Order