Sheares v Chow: Family Arrangement, Trust Constitution & Testamentary Disposition

In Sheares Betty Hang Kiu v Chow Kwok Chi and Others, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute over the validity of a deed of family arrangement (DFA) and a deed of trust (DOT) executed by Grace Chow (the Settlor) to redistribute her share of her deceased husband's estate among her children. The plaintiff, Betty Hang Kiu Sheares, sought an order for the defendants (Chow Kwok Chi, Chow Kwok Chuen, and Chow Kwok Ching) to provide an account of the assets held in trust. The defendants contested the validity of the trust, arguing it was a testamentary disposition. Justice Rajah ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding the DFA and DOT valid and enforceable, and ordered the defendants to provide an account of the trust assets.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding the validity of a family arrangement and deed of trust. The court found the trust valid and enforceable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chow Kwok ChuenDefendantIndividualClaims against DefendantLost
Chow Kwok ChiDefendantIndividualClaims against DefendantLost
Chow Kwok ChingDefendantIndividualClaims against DefendantLost
Sheares Betty Hang KiuPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
V K RajahJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenny ChooiYeo-Leong and Peh LLC
Kelvin FongYeo-Leong and Peh LLC
Tan Siah YongPiah Tan and Partners
Ang Wee TiongTan Kok Quan Partnership
Tan Kok QuanTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Chow Cho Pon (the Testator) died on 3 August 1997, leaving a will.
  2. The Testator's will engendered friction among his children.
  3. Grace Chow (the Settlor) executed a deed of family arrangement (DFA) and a deed of trust (DOT).
  4. The Settlor declared herself trustee of properties inherited from the Testator's estate.
  5. The DOT stipulated distribution of assets upon the Settlor's death.
  6. The Settlor made further wills after executing the DOT.
  7. The defendants, the Settlor's sons, contested the validity of the DOT.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sheares Betty Hang Kiu v Chow Kwok Chi and Others, OS 863/2004, [2006] SGHC 34

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Will dated by Chow Cho Pon (the Testator)
Chow Cho Pon (the Testator) died
High Court granted probate of the Testator’s Will to the Original Trustees
Deed of agreement (DOA) was entered into
Deed of family arrangement (DFA) was entered into
Deed of trust (DOT) executed
Settlor executed a will
Settlor’s Last Will dated
Settlor died
Surviving Original Trustee obtained a deed of discharge from the estate of the Testator
Case Number : OS 863/2004
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Deed of Trust
    • Outcome: The court held that the deed of trust (DOT) and deed of family arrangement (DFA) were valid and enforceable.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Uncertainty of subject matter
      • Lack of certainty of objects
      • Testamentary disposition
  2. Enforceability of Family Arrangement
    • Outcome: The court found the family arrangement to be valid and enforceable, emphasizing the intention to resolve family disputes.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Nature of Settlor's Interest
    • Outcome: The court held that the settlor's interest in the testator's estate was more than a bare expectancy and could be legally conveyed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Future property
      • Bare expectancy

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Proper particulars of the Assets
  2. Account of the Assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Failure to Account

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Estate Planning
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Manks v WhiteleyN/AYes[1912] 1 Ch 735N/ACited for the principle that several deeds forming part of one transaction and contemporaneously executed have the same effect as if they were one deed.
Yeap Cheah Neo v Ong Cheng NeoPrivy CouncilYes(1875) LR 6 PC 381N/ACited for the principle that the intention of the settlor is to be gathered from the tenor of the Deeds as well as the relevant circumstances at the time the trust was created.
In re HamiltonN/AYes[1895] 2 Ch 370N/ACited for the principle that the question of “intention” is always factual and observations from other cases, even when the same words have been used, is quite irrelevant.
Beyer v BeyerN/AYes[1960] VR 126N/ACited for the principle that the acid test as to whether an instrument possesses a testamentary character is whether the instrument is revocable.
Re SheppherdN/AYes(1893) 5 QLJ 116N/ACited for the principle that death is the event that is to give effect to the instrument it is to be understood that the instrument does not become binding until after death, and not merely that the performance of the obligations or enjoyment of the benefits imposed or conferred by it, is postponed until after death.
In the Goods of RobinsonN/AYes(1867), L.R. 1 P. & D. 384N/ACited for the principle that Whenever a question arises as to the testamentary character of a paper, an invariable test to be applied is whether the instrument is revocable.
Fletcher v. FletcherN/AYes(1844), 4 Hare 67; 67 E.R. 564N/ACited for the principle that Whenever a question arises as to the testamentary character of a paper, an invariable test to be applied is whether the instrument is revocable.
Jeffries v. AlexanderN/AYes(1860), 8 H.L.C. 594; 11 E.R. 562N/ACited for the principle that Whenever a question arises as to the testamentary character of a paper, an invariable test to be applied is whether the instrument is revocable.
Re FentonN/AYes[1919] V.L.R. 740; 25 A.L.R. 424N/ACited for the principle that If the document is not to operate until death it is revocable. If it is not revocable either by its terms or from any other reason it is not operative only on death, and is not a testamentary paper.
Baird (Luvinia) v Baird (Dickson)N/AYes[1990] 2 AC 548N/ACited for the principle that an essential characteristic of a will is that, during the lifetime of the testator, it is a mere declaration of his present intention and may be freely revoked or altered. It does not follow that every document intended to operate on death and containing a power of revocation is necessarily testamentary in character.
Wonnacott v LoewenN/AYes(1990) 44 BCLR (2d) 23; 1990 CanLII 976N/ACited for the principle that if the person executing it intends that it shall not take effect until after his death, and it is dependent upon his death for its vigour and effect, it is testamentary. However, if the document created a gift in praesenti, albeit to be performed after the donor’s death, it was not dependent on his death for its vigour and effect.
Cock v CookeN/AYes(1866) LR 1 P & D 241N/ACited for the principle that if the person executing it intends that it shall not take effect until after his death, and it is dependent upon his death for its vigour and effect, it is testamentary.
Corlet v. Isle of Man Bank Limited et alN/AYes[1937] 2 W.W.R. 209N/ACited for the principle that the question is whether the instrument has vigour to effect, and does effect, or is “consummate on execution” to effect, a gift or to create a trust. If the document is “consummate” to create a trust in praesenti, though to be performed after the death of donor, it is not dependent upon his death for its vigour and effect.
Anderson (Administratrix of Costello Estate) v. Patton et alN/AYes[1948] 1 W.W.R. 461N/ACited for the principle that If the document is not intended to have any operation until the settlor’s death it is testamentary. If the document is intended to have and does have the effect of transferring the property or of setting up a trust thereof in praesenti, though to be performed after the settlor’s death, it is not testamentary.
In Re EllenboroughN/AYes[1903] 1 Ch 697N/ACited for the principle that when the assurance is not for value, a Court of Equity will not assist a volunteer.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v LivingstonPrivy CouncilYes[1965] AC 694N/ACited for the principle that until administration is complete no one is in a position to say what items of property would need to be realised for the purposes of that administration or of what the residue, when ascertained, would consist or what its value would be.
Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v KerrN/AYes[1995] 1 AC 148N/ACited for the principle that the right of a beneficiary to have the estate properly administered was described as a chose in action that could be the subject of a settlement.
In re Leigh’s Will TrustsN/AYes[1970] Ch 277N/ACited for the principle that If a person entitled to such a chose in action can transmit or assign it, such transmission or assignment must carry with it the right to receive the fruits of the chose in action when they mature.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Deed of Family Arrangement
  • Deed of Trust
  • Testamentary Disposition
  • Family Arrangement
  • Trust
  • Settlor
  • Beneficiaries
  • Assets
  • Residuary Estate
  • Executors
  • Trustees

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • family arrangement
  • testamentary disposition
  • Singapore
  • estate
  • will
  • beneficiaries
  • settlor

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law95
Estate Administration90
Succession Law85
Deeds of Family Arrangement60
Family Law40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Family Arrangements
  • Estate Administration