Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck: Res Judicata & Will Construction Dispute

In Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute among beneficiaries of Madam Loh Gek Huay's will. Plaintiff Nellie Goh, as administratrix, sought an order to sell a property, No. 61 Kovan Road, over objections from defendant Rosaline Goh and others. The court, led by Sundaresh Menon JC, considered whether the issue was res judicata due to a prior order and whether the will expressly forbade the sale. Ultimately, the court denied the application to sanction the sale, construing the will as granting each beneficiary a veto over the sale of No. 61.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application for this court to sanction the sale of No. 61 is denied.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Beneficiary Nellie Goh sought to sell property against objections. The court addressed res judicata and will construction, denying the sale.

1.7 Decision Date

21 November 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Goh Rosaline	Defendant	Individual	Other	Won	Jagit Singh of Gurdip & Gill
Goh Nellie	Plaintiff, Administratrix	Individual	Application Denied	Lost	Valiappan Subramaniam of Veritas Law Corportation
Goh Lian Chyu	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral	Andre Maniam of Wong Partnership
Goh Lian Teck	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Estate of the late Goh Annie	Defendant	Other	Other	Neutral
Goh Molly	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Goh Lian Poh	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Goh Lian Hing	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Goh Shirley	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Goh Judy	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral
Goh Boon Hui Roney	Defendant	Individual	Other	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Jagit Singh	Gurdip & Gill
Valiappan Subramaniam	Veritas Law Corportation
Andre Maniam	Wong Partnership

4. Facts

Madam Loh bequeathed two properties, No. 59 and No. 61 Kovan Road, to her ten children, grandson, and daughter-in-law.
The will stipulated that No. 61 should not be sold without the written consent of all eleven beneficiaries.
A prior suit, OS 618, determined Rosaline's right to reside at No. 61 rent-free.
Nellie, as administratrix, sought court approval to sell No. 61 to cover estate expenses.
Rosaline and three other beneficiaries objected to the sale, citing the will's requirement for unanimous consent.
Nellie argued that the will should be construed in light of the beneficiaries now having their own properties.

5. Formal Citations

Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and Others, OS 950/2006, [2006] SGHC 211

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-01-01	MC Suit 411 of 2003 filed concerning a complaint by Rosaline that Lian Chyu and Nellie had unlawfully removed and disposed of some kennels.
2005-08-08	Order made in OS 618 determining Rosaline's right to reside in No 61.
2005-08-08	Nellie took over as administrator of the estate.
2005-10-15	Meeting of the beneficiaries was held where the sale of No. 61 was proposed.
2006-11-22	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that the issue of whether the will prohibits the sale of No. 61 had not already been determined in OS 618 and was therefore not res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Cause of action estoppel
  - Issue estoppel
  - Abuse of process
Construction of Will
- Outcome: The court construed the will as expressly forbidding the sale of No. 61 in the event that any one or more of the beneficiaries object to its sale.
- Category: Substantive
Trustees Act Section 56(1)
- Outcome: The court determined that it did not have the power under s 56(1) of the Act to order the sale of the property due to the express prohibition in the will.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Order sanctioning the sale of No. 61 Kovan Road pursuant to s 56 of the Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Sale of Property under Trustees Act

10. Practice Areas

Estate Planning
Trust Administration
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Rajabali Jumabhoy and Others v Ameerali R Jumabhoy and Others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR 439	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court’s powers under s 56(1) of the Act in relation to the management and administration of trust property are limited by the express terms of the trust instrument.
In re New	N/A	Yes	[1901] 2 Ch 534	England and Wales	Cited regarding the court’s inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a trust instrument in very limited circumstances.
Re Tan Tye, Deceased	N/A	Yes	[1957] MLJ 114	Malaysia	Cited regarding the court’s inherent jurisdiction to rewrite a trust instrument in very limited circumstances.
Re Downshire Settled Estates, Re Chapman’s Settlement Trusts, Re Blackwell’s Settlement Trusts	N/A	Yes	[1953] Ch 218	England and Wales	Cited to explain the object of s 57 of the UK Trustees Act 1925 (in pari materia with our s 56(1)).
Leo Teng Choy v Leo Teng Kit	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 256	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion to sanction the performance of an act by a trustee under s 56(1) subject to any express intention evidenced by the trust instrument under consideration.
Thoday v Thoday	N/A	Yes	[1964] P 181	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of cause of action estoppel.
McIlkenny v Chief Constable of the West Midlands	N/A	Yes	[1980] 1 QB 283	England and Wales	Discusses the relationship between abuse of process and res judicata.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the acceptance of the doctrine of abuse of process in Singapore.
Lee Hiok Tng (in his personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng & Anor (executors and trustees of the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 41	Singapore	Cited for the acceptance of the doctrine of abuse of process in Singapore.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited for following Johnson in accepting the doctrine of abuse of process.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police	House of Lords	Yes	[1982] AC 529	England and Wales	Illustrates the distinct features of the doctrine of abuse of process.
Reichel v Magrath	N/A	Yes	(1889) 14 App. Cas. 665	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that it would be a scandal to the administration of justice if the same question having been disposed of by one case, the litigant were to be permitted by changing the form of the proceedings to set up the same case again.
Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon	N/A	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 1482	England and Wales	Explains the distinction between res judicata and abuse of process.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek and Others	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 644	Singapore	Cited for accepting the distinction between res judicata and abuse of process.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 157	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to establish an issue estoppel.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck	N/A	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR 712	Singapore	Cited regarding the intention of the judge is critical in determining whether the prior decision is a final and conclusive judgment on its merits.
Hendrawan Setiadi v OCBC Securities Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 503	Singapore	Cited regarding the intention of the judge is critical in determining whether the prior decision is a final and conclusive judgment on its merits.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man	N/A	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR 117	Singapore	Cited regarding consent orders and issue estoppel.
Kinch v Walcott	N/A	Yes	[1929] AC 482	Other	Cited regarding consent orders and issue estoppel.
Richards v Richards	N/A	Yes	[1953] P 36	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement that the subject matter of both proceedings be identical.
Mills v Cooper	N/A	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 459	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement that the subject matter of both proceedings be identical.
Blackham’s Case	N/A	Yes	(1709) 1 Salk 290	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement of an identity of subject-matter.
Blair v Curran	N/A	Yes	(1939) 62 CLR 464	Australia	Cited regarding the requirement of an identity of subject-matter.
Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation	N/A	Yes	[1926] AC 155	Other	Cited regarding the requirement of an identity of subject-matter.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement of an identity of subject-matter.
New Brunswick Rly Co v British and French Trust Corpn Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1939] AC 1	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement of an identity of subject-matter.
Khan v Golechha International Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1980] 1 WLR 1482	England and Wales	Cited regarding issue estoppel.
SCF Finance Co Ltd v Masri (No 3)	N/A	Yes	[1987] QB 1028	England and Wales	Cited regarding issue estoppel.
Linprint v Hexham Textiles	N/A	Yes	(1991) 23 NSWLR 508	Australia	Cited regarding issue estoppel.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1843-60] All ER Rep 378	England and Wales	Cited as the root of the defence of abuse of process.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 2 AC 93	England and Wales	Cited regarding special circumstances where it may be unjust to enforce the strict letter of the doctrine.
Juan José de la Trinidad Concha v Manuel Antonio Concha	N/A	Yes	(1886) 11 HL 541	England and Wales	Cited regarding the fact that the order made by Phang JC appears to suggest that it extended to the sale issue is not decisive.
Re Bailey	N/A	Yes	[1951] Ch 407	England and Wales	Cited regarding the overriding aim of any court construing a will is to seek and give effect to the testamentary intention as expressed in the words employed by the testator.
N/A	High Court	Yes	OS 618 of 2005	Singapore	Prior application by Rosaline, inter alia, for a determination of her right to reside in No 61.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Res judicata
Issue estoppel
Cause of action estoppel
Abuse of process
Trustees Act
Will construction
Beneficiary
Testamentary intention
Express prohibition
Right of residence
Veto power

15.2 Keywords

res judicata
will construction
trustees act
property sale
beneficiaries
estate
trust
Singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Wills and Probate	75
Succession Law	75
Trust Law	70
Res Judicata	60

16. Subjects

Trusts
Wills
Civil Procedure
Property Law