Teo Song Kwang v Gnau Lye Chan: Striking Out Pleadings & Validity of Assignment of Beneficial Interest

In Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, addressed the plaintiff's appeal against the assistant registrar's decision and the defendants' cross-appeal regarding the striking out of certain paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim. The plaintiff sought the return of money and personal effects from the defendants, claiming the deceased held them on a resulting trust for him. The court dismissed the plaintiff’s appeal and allowed the defendants’ appeal with costs, finding the paragraphs scandalous and irrelevant to the plaintiff's claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; defendants' appeal allowed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed striking out pleadings and the validity of assigning a beneficial interest in an estate. The court dismissed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

11 January 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Teo Song Kwang alias Richard	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	N Sreenivasan of Straits Law Practice LLC Edwin Seah of Edwin Seah and K S Teo
Gnau Lye Chan	Defendant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Tan Teng Muan of Mallal and Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal and Namazie
Teo Phui Heng	Defendant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Tan Teng Muan of Mallal and Namazie Loh Li Qin of Mallal and Namazie

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
N Sreenivasan	Straits Law Practice LLC
Edwin Seah	Edwin Seah and K S Teo
Tan Teng Muan	Mallal and Namazie
Loh Li Qin	Mallal and Namazie

4. Facts

Plaintiff claimed the deceased held money and personal effects on resulting trust for him.
Plaintiff alleged an oral agreement with the first defendant to waive her rights to the deceased's estate.
The first defendant obtained letters of administration through her attorney, the second defendant.
The plaintiff arranged and paid for the deceased's funeral arrangements.
The first defendant denied relinquishing her rights to petition for Grant of Letters of Administration.
The alleged waiver agreement was not in writing.
The deceased's estate reimbursed the plaintiff $4,940 for funeral expenses.

5. Formal Citations

Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan and Another, Suit 116/2005, [2006] SGHC 2

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1977-01-01	Plaintiff met the deceased.
1979-01-01	Deceased became the plaintiff's mistress.
1992-01-01	Plaintiff divorced his wife.
1992-01-01	Seng Hup Corporation Berhad listed on the Malaysian stock exchange.
1992-01-01	Plaintiff caused the Company to pay a salary plus allowances to the deceased.
1997-01-01	Plaintiff caused the Company to pay a salary plus allowances to the deceased.
1999-01-01	New owners of the Company brought an action against the plaintiff in Suit No 1674 of 1999.
2000-08-08	Plaintiff consented to judgment in the Suit in the sum of $3.3m.
2001-01-01	Plaintiff decided to refinance the Beverly Hill property.
2001-03-28	Plaintiff wrote a handwritten note to the deceased.
2001-08-22	Plaintiff obtained refinancing in the sum of $1.5m from Citibank.
2001-09-10	Plaintiff wrote a handwritten note to the deceased.
2002-02-14	Deceased transferred her half share in the Beverly Hill property to the plaintiff.
2003-01-23	Deceased passed away.
2003-01-30	Deceased passed away.
2003-02-01	Plaintiff received a call from the Singapore Police informing him of the deceased’s death.
2003-07-30	First defendant granted a power of attorney to the second defendant.
2003-08-19	Plaintiff filed a caveat against the issuance of a grant for the estate.
2004-01-12	Second defendant obtained letters of administration.
2005-01-13	Grant of letters of administration was issued to the second defendant.
2005-05-20	Plaintiff filed Further and Better Particulars.
2005-06-06	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter to the first defendant.
2005-06-16	Plaintiff filed his Reply.
2005-07-03	First defendant's solicitors sent a letter denying relinquishment of rights.
2005-07-29	First and second defendants applied to strike out paras of the plaintiff’s Amended Statement of Claim.
2005-08-11	Plaintiff filed an affidavit.
2005-01-01	Assistant registrar allowed the application and struck out paras of the Amended Statement of Claim.
2005-01-01	Plaintiff appealed against the assistant registrar’s decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 241 of 2005.
2005-01-01	Defendants filed a cross-appeal in Registrar’s Appeal No 243 of 2005.
2005-01-01	Both appeals came up for hearing before me.
2005-01-01	Plaintiff has now appealed against my decision in Civil Appeal No 108 of 2005.
2006-01-12	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court struck out several paragraphs from the plaintiff's Amended Statement of Claim and Reply, finding them scandalous, irrelevant, and embarrassing.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Scandalous pleadings
  - Embarrassing pleadings
  - Irrelevant pleadings
Validity of Assignment of Beneficial Interest
- Outcome: The court held that the alleged oral assignment of the first defendant's equitable interest in the deceased's estate was unenforceable because it was not in writing, as required by Section 7(2) of the Civil Law Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1996] 1 MLJ 761
  - [1996] 3 SLR 398
Renunciation of Rights to Grant of Administration
- Outcome: The court found that the alleged oral renunciation by the defendants of their rights to a grant of administration to the deceased’s estate in favour of the plaintiff did not fall within the mode prescribed under ss 3(2) and 4 of the Probate and Administration Act.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Return of Sum
Return of Personal Effects
Specific Performance of Waiver Agreement

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Resulting Trust

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Estate Administration

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Khaw Poh Chhuan v Ng Gaik Peng	Federal Court	Yes	[1996] 1 MLJ 761	Malaysia	Cited regarding the requirements for a valid assignment and whether an equitable assignment needs to be in writing. The court distinguished this case, finding it did not support the plaintiff's argument.
Wong Moy v Soo Ah Choy	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 398	Singapore	Cited to affirm the principle that a beneficiary of a deceased's intestate estate has no interest or property in the personal estate until administration is complete.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 7(2) Civil Law Act	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Waiver agreement
Resulting trust
Equitable interest
Letters of administration
Renunciation
Chose in action
Beneficial interest
Unadministered estate

15.2 Keywords

Striking out
Pleadings
Beneficial interest
Assignment
Probate
Administration
Waiver
Equity

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	85
Civil Practice	75
Succession Law	60
Trust Law	50
Contract Law	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Probate and Administration
Contract Law
Equity