Re Wong Sook Mun Christina: Application for Declaration of Presumed Death under Section 110 of the Evidence Act

In Re Wong Sook Mun Christina, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Wong Sook Mun Christina for a declaration of presumed death of her father under Section 110 of the Evidence Act. The application was prompted by the Central Provident Fund Board's refusal to release funds from the father's account without a court order. The court, presided over by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC, dismissed the application, holding that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of Section 110, as the estranged relationship between the father and his family meant they were not persons who would naturally have heard from him.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for a court declaration of presumed death of applicant's father under s 110 Evidence Act. The court dismissed the application, finding the provision inapplicable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wong Sook Mun ChristinaApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Raymond Lam Kuo WeiDrew and Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The applicant's parents married on 2 December 1963 and had three children.
  2. The applicant's father left for the US in 1979 after a quarrel, without providing a forwarding address.
  3. There was no contact between the father and his family for over a quarter of a century, except for a power of attorney in 1994.
  4. The power of attorney was related to the matrimonial property and divorce proceedings initiated by the wife in 1993.
  5. The applicant sought a court order declaring her father presumed dead to access funds in his CPF account.
  6. The CPF Board refused to release the funds without a court order.
  7. The applicant relied on Section 110 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the presumption of death after seven years of being unheard of.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Wong Sook Mun Christina, OS 258/2005, [2005] SGHC 100

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Husband and wife were married.
Husband left for the US after a quarrel.
Wife filed a petition for divorce.
Husband gave the eldest daughter a power of attorney.
Divorce decree made absolute.
Solicitors sent letters to the applicant’s father’s last known address.
Advertisements were placed locally in The Straits Times.
Solicitors sent letters to the applicant’s father and the Notary Public.
Advertisements were placed in the US in the USA Today.
Letters were sent to the Controller of Immigration and the Singapore Embassy in Washington DC.
Reminders sent to the Controller of Immigration and the Singapore Embassy in Washington DC.
The Embassy responded to the applicant’s brother.
Advertisements were placed in the USA Today.
Advertisements were placed locally in the Lianhe Zaobao.
Letters were sent by the applicant’s present solicitors to both her father and the Notary Public at their last known addresses.
Advertisements were placed locally in The Straits Times.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Presumption of Death
    • Outcome: The court held that Section 110 of the Evidence Act did not apply and therefore could not grant the application for a declaration of presumed death.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • AIR 1926 PC 9
      • (1926) TLR 159
      • (1870) LR 5 Ch App 139

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Court declaration of presumed death

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Procedure

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lal Chand Marwari v Mahant Ramrup GirJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYesAIR 1926 PC 9IndiaCited as a leading decision establishing that Section 110 of the Evidence Act only results in a presumption of the fact of death and does not establish the particular time at which the death itself occurred.
Lal Chand Marwari v Mahant Ramrup GirJudicial Committee of the Privy CouncilYes(1926) TLR 159IndiaCited as a leading decision establishing that Section 110 of the Evidence Act only results in a presumption of the fact of death and does not establish the particular time at which the death itself occurred.
In re Phené’s TrustsCourt of Appeal in ChanceryYes(1870) LR 5 Ch App 139England and WalesCited as the source of Section 110 of the Evidence Act and for the proposition that the provision itself only results in a presumption of the fact of death and does not establish the particular time at which the death itself occurred.
R Muthu Thambi v K JanagiHigh CourtYes[1955] MLJ 47MalaysiaCited for the proposition that Section 110 of the Evidence Act only results in a presumption of the fact of death and does not establish the particular time at which the death itself occurred.
N Prem Ananthi v Tahsildar, CoimbatoreHigh Court of MadrasYesAIR 1989 Mad 248IndiaCited to contrast with the court's view that Section 110 does not constitute a substantive provision that establishes that the person concerned is dead.
Narayan Bhagwant v Shriniwas TrimbakBombay High CourtYes(1905) 8 Bombay LR 226IndiaCited for the principle that the legal effect of Section 110 is to shift the burden of proof back to the person who was alleging that the person concerned was alive.
Shankareppa v ShivarudrappaHigh Court of MysoreYesAIR 1963 Mysore 115IndiaCited as a case that mentions that Section 110 was derived from English law.
Prudential Assurance Company v EdmondsHouse of LordsYes(1877) 2 App Cas 487United KingdomCited for the importance of the element or requirement of Section 110.
East Punjab Province v Bachan SinghPunjab High CourtYesAIR 1957 Punjab 316IndiaCited for the principle that a person absconding from justice would not communicate with any relation in the natural course of events.
Surjit Kaur v Jhujhar SinghPunjab and Haryana High CourtYesAIR 1980 P & H 274IndiaCited for the principle that a person who has deserted his wife would not naturally have communicated with her.
Kamtabai v UmabaiNagpur High CourtYesAIR 1929 Nagpur 127IndiaCited for the principle that a wife, who left her husband and is in the keeping of another, is not one of the persons who would naturally hear from him if he were alive.
Re Gun Soon ThinHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 MLJ 351MalaysiaCited for the principle that the persons who allegedly would naturally have heard of the applicant’s father cannot simply rely upon the applicant’s father to attempt to contact them.
Lim Ah Khee v Legal Representative of the Estate of Ong Koh Tee, deceasedHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR 769SingaporeCited to illustrate that Section 110 cannot be used as a device of convenience where another method for proving the death of a particular individual clearly exists.
Re A Penhas DeceasedHigh CourtYes[1947] MLJ 78MalaysiaCited as a situation where the circumstances are such as to lead the applicant concerned to reasonably suspect that something has gone horribly wrong in so far as his or her loved one is concerned.
China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd)High CourtYes[2005] SGHC 40SingaporeCited as an example of a case where other provisions of the Evidence Act may also be in need of legislative reform.
Re Osman bin BachitHigh CourtYes[1997] 4 MLJ 445MalaysiaCited for a succinct account of relevant cases from various jurisdictions.
Watson v EnglandCourt of ChanceryYes(1844) 14 Sim 28; 60 ER 266England and WalesCited for the principle that a man who is a fugitive from justice, from creditors, from his family, or from his fiancée cannot be expected to communicate with the persons who, but for such escape, would have been likely to have heard from him.
Bowden v HendersonHigh Court of ChanceryYes(1854) 2 Sm & G 360; 65 ER 436England and WalesCited for the principle that a man who is a fugitive from justice, from creditors, from his family, or from his fiancée cannot be expected to communicate with the persons who, but for such escape, would have been likely to have heard from him.
Doe d France v AndrewsQueen's BenchYes(1850) 15 QB 756; 117 ER 644England and WalesCited for the principle that the persons who would have been likely to hear of the propositus are generally his close relations or neighbours.
Chipchase v ChipchaseProbate, Divorce and Admiralty DivisionYes[1939] P 391England and WalesCited for the principle that those who allegedly would naturally have heard of the applicant’s father cannot simply rely upon the applicant’s father to attempt to contact them.
Re Watkins, Watkins v WatkinsChancery DivisionYes[1953] 2 All ER 1112England and WalesCited to compare with Chipchase v Chipchase.
In the Estate of William Lancelot WalkerProbate, Divorce and Admiralty DivisionYes[1909] P 115England and WalesCited as a situation where the circumstances are such as to lead the applicant concerned to reasonably suspect that something has gone horribly wrong in so far as his or her loved one is concerned.
In the Goods of MatthewsProbate, Divorce and Admiralty DivisionYes[1898] P 17England and WalesCited to compare with the facts of the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 110 Evidence ActSingapore
Section 109 Evidence ActSingapore
Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Presumption of death
  • Evidence Act
  • Central Provident Fund
  • CPF Board
  • Estrangement
  • Burden of proof
  • Power of attorney

15.2 Keywords

  • presumed death
  • evidence act
  • CPF
  • Singapore
  • family law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Evidence90
Succession Law60
Wills and Probate50

16. Subjects

  • Evidence
  • Presumptions
  • Civil Procedure