Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian: Forum Non Conveniens & Domicile in Probate Proceedings

In Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the executor, Peters Roger May, against the stay of notation proceedings to determine the domicile of the deceased, Dennis William Pinder, for probate purposes. Pinder's widow, Lillian Gek Lian, sought the stay, arguing England was a more appropriate forum. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding Singapore to be the more appropriate forum, considering Pinder's long-term connection to Singapore and the availability of video-linked evidence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding stay of notation proceedings to determine testator's domicile. The court found Singapore to be the more appropriate forum.

1.7 Decision Date

5 March 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Peters Roger May	Appellant, Executor	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Goh Kok Yeow of De Souza Tay and Goh
Pinder Lillian Gek Lian	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Deborah Barker of KhattarWong Vanessa Yeo of KhattarWong
Commissioner of Estate Duties	Other	Government Agency	Neutral	Neutral	Foo Hui Min of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore Usha Chandradas of Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
V K Rajah	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Kok Yeow	De Souza Tay and Goh
Deborah Barker	KhattarWong
Vanessa Yeo	KhattarWong
Foo Hui Min	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Usha Chandradas	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore

4. Facts

Dennis William Pinder was a prominent figure in Singapore's industry in the 1960s and 1970s.
Pinder was convicted of criminal breach of trust in 1975.
After his release, Pinder maintained that he was a Singapore citizen and considered Singapore his home.
Pinder traveled frequently but always returned to Singapore.
Pinder died in England in January 2004 while planning to return to Singapore.
The executor applied for probate in Singapore, which was granted, but the issue of Pinder's domicile remained unresolved.
The widow argued that Pinder was domiciled in England and sought a stay of proceedings in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian, Probate 73/2004, SIC 2630/2005, RA 191/2005, [2006] SGHC 39

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1975-01-01	Dennis William Pinder convicted of criminal breach of trust.
1984-06-29	Pinder's last will was dated.
2003-07-01	Pinder diagnosed with deep vein thrombosis in England.
2004-01-12	Pinder sent a fax stating his intention to return to Singapore.
2004-01-22	Pinder passed away in England.
2004-04-28	Executor filed an application for probate.
2004-08-04	Probate granted to the Executor.
2005-05-12	Executor filed an ancillary application for a determination whether a notation should be endorsed on the grant of probate that Pinder died domiciled in Singapore.
2005-07-26	Assistant registrar stayed the notation proceedings.
2006-03-06	High Court allowed the Executor’s appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Stay of Proceedings
- Outcome: The court held that a stay of the notation proceedings was not justified, finding Singapore to be the more appropriate forum.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Forum non conveniens
  - Lis pendens
Domicile
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on Pinder's domicile but concluded that a Singapore court was the most appropriate forum to determine the issue.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Stay of proceedings
Determination of domicile

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Probate Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Sommerville v Lord Sommerville	N/A	Yes	[1801] 5 Ves 750	N/A	Cited for the principle that legal policy underpinning the concept of domicile is to ensure that there is a definite law of succession to connect that person with a particular legal system.
Forbes v Forbes	N/A	Yes	[1854] Kay 341	N/A	Cited for the principle that legal policy underpinning the concept of domicile is to ensure that there is a definite law of succession to connect that person with a particular legal system.
Udny v Udny	N/A	Yes	(1869) LR 1 Sc & Div 441	N/A	Cited for the principle that the enquiry is to focus on which of the residences is the “chief residence” or the primary residence.
Spiliada Maritime Corporation v Cansulex Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1987] AC 460	N/A	The judgment extensively relies on the principles enunciated in this case in relation to the stay of proceedings apropos forum non conveniens.
Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling Corp v PT Airfast Services Indonesia	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 776	Singapore	Cited as an instance where the Spiliada principles were applied in Singapore.
Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Bhavani Stores Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited as an instance where the Spiliada principles were applied in Singapore.
Eng Liat Kiang v Eng Bak Hern	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 97	Singapore	Cited as an instance where the Spiliada principles were applied in Singapore.
Société du Gaz de Paris v Société Anonyme de Navigation “Les Armateurs Français”	N/A	Yes	1926 SLT 33	N/A	Cited for the principle that the object under the words “forum non conveniens” is to find that forum which is the more suitable for the ends of justice.
Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Rangasamy	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 628	Singapore	Cited for observations on the use of video links to hear testimony and to assess witnesses.
Polanski v Condé Nast Publications Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2005] 1 WLR 637	N/A	Cited for observations made in the House of Lords decision in relation to video conferencing.
Re Eu Keng Chee, decd	N/A	Yes	[1961] MLJ 210	N/A	Cited for the principle that very little reliance can be placed upon declarations of intention especially if they are oral.
Ross v. Ross	N/A	Yes	[1930] AC 1	N/A	Cited for the principle that declarations as to intention are rightly regarded in determining the question of a change of domicile, but they must be examined by considering the person to whom, the purpose for which, and the circumstances in which they are made and they must further be fortified and carried into effect by conduct and action consistent with the declared intention.
De Dampierre v De Dampierre	N/A	Yes	[1988] AC 92	N/A	Cited for the principle that the existence of proceedings in another jurisdiction may, depending on the circumstances, be relevant to the inquiry.
Morgan v Cilento	N/A	Yes	[2004] EWHC 188	N/A	Cited for the principle that the enquiry is then to focus on which of the residences is the “chief residence” or the primary residence.
In re Annesley	N/A	Yes	[1926] Ch 692	N/A	Cited for the principle that even a declaration of domicile in a will is legally irrelevant as this issue will in the final analysis be determined by the court taking into account the entire matrix.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Parliamentary Elections Act (Cap 218, 2001 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Domicile
Forum non conveniens
Stay of proceedings
Probate
Notation proceedings
Lis pendens
Video link
Executor
Testator

15.2 Keywords

domicile
probate
forum non conveniens
Singapore
England
stay of proceedings

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Domicile	90
Wills and Probate	80
Civil Practice	75
Succession Law	70
Jurisdiction	60
Probate Administration	50
Resealing	40
Foreign Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Probate
Conflict of Laws
Forum Non Conveniens
Domicile