Oei Karen v Ng Yee Hoon: Mistake, Duress & Contract Law

In Tsu Soo Sin nee Oei Karen v Ng Yee Hoon, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Karen Tsu against her sister-in-law, Ng Yee Hoon, for the return of $666,666, alleging it was paid by mistake or under duress. The plaintiff claimed she was misled into believing her deceased husband had agreed to donate to the defendant and her sisters. The court, Lai Siu Chiu J, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding no evidence of mistake or duress and that the payment was a voluntary gift. The court ordered costs to be paid by the plaintiff to the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs to the defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Karen Tsu sued Ng Yee Hoon for $666,666, alleging payment by mistake or duress. The court dismissed the claim, finding no mistake or duress.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tsu Soo Sin nee Oei KarenPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Ng Yee HoonDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Brendon ChoaACIES Law Corporation
Chen Chuen TatACIES Law Corporation
Daniel SooDrew & Napier LLC
Celeste AngDrew & Napier LLC
Dipti JauharDrew & Napier LLC
Indranee Rajah SCDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff paid $666,666 to the defendant, her sister-in-law.
  2. The plaintiff claimed the payment was made under the mistaken belief that her deceased husband had agreed to donate to the defendant and her sisters.
  3. The defendant claimed the payment was part of an agreement between the beneficiaries of the late father's estate to give $2 million to the sisters.
  4. The plaintiff alleged that Tony threatened not to release Boon Wan's share of the estate unless she made the payment.
  5. The defendant denied that the payment was made under duress or mistake.
  6. Boon Poh testified that there was no agreement reached during Boon Wan's lifetime regarding the donation to the sisters.
  7. The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove her case on the grounds of mistake, economic duress, and unenforceability.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tsu Soo Sin nee Oei Karen v Ng Yee Hoon, Suit 48/2007, [2008] SGHC 30

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ming Whee passed away.
The late father's Will was dated.
Tan Hak Siang took a loan of $500,000 from Tay for Yew Say Pte Ltd.
Oei Tok Kek passed away.
Tony was granted probate of the late father's estate.
Tan and Geo Eng were adjudged bankrupts.
Boon Wan passed away.
The plaintiff saw the Will.
The plaintiff was granted letters of administration to Boon Wan's estate.
Meeting at the defendant's residence where the plaintiff issued a cheque for $666,666.
Cheques from Tony and the plaintiff were cleared.
Boon Poh's cheque was cleared.
The defendant's daughter married.
Tony commenced proceedings against the plaintiff in Suits No 514 of 2006.
The plaintiff's solicitors demanded the return of the sum.
Boon Poh provided a letter to the plaintiff's solicitors.
The plaintiff filed the present suit.
Boon Poh's solicitors wrote to the defendant's solicitors.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Mistake
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not pay the sum under a mistaken belief.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Economic Duress
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff did not pay the sum under economic duress.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Enforceability of Oral Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that s 7(2) of the Civil Law Act did not apply to the facts of the case.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Return of $666,666

9. Cause of Actions

  • Mistake
  • Economic Duress
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Oei Tjiong Bin v Tsu Soo SinHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 215SingaporeCited as a previous suit between the parties, indicating a history of legal disputes.
Timpson’s Executors v Yerbury (HM Inspector of TaxesN/AYes[1936] 1 KB 645England and WalesCited for the principle regarding the disposition of equitable interest.
Teo Song Kwang (alias Richard) v Gnau Lye Chan & AnorHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 2SingaporeCited regarding the unenforceability of an oral agreement amounting to an assignment of an equitable interest.
Info-communications Development Authority of Singapore v Singapore Telecommunications Ltd (No. 2)N/AYes[2002] 3 SLR 488SingaporeCited as an example of a claimant who assumed the risk of making payment under a compromise and which was held not to be an operative mistake.
David Securities Pty Limited v Commonwealth Bank of AustraliaHigh CourtYes[1992] 175 CLR 353AustraliaCited for the principle that a person who elects to pay money to discharge a claim cannot recover the money merely because they later find out they could have successfully contested the claim.
Pao On & Others v Lau Yiu Long & OthersPrivy CouncilYes[1980] AC 614United KingdomCited for the recognition of economic duress as a factor that may render a contract voidable, provided it amounts to a coercion of will that vitiates consent.
Astley v ReynoldsN/AYesAstley v Reynolds (1731) 2 Str. 915England and WalesCited for the principle that money paid under economic compulsion could be recovered in an action for money had and received.
Occidental Worldwide Investment Corporation v Skibs A/S AvantiN/AYes[1976] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 293England and WalesCited for the recognition that commercial pressure may constitute duress.
North Ocean Shipping Co LtdN/AYes[1979] QB 705England and WalesCited for the recognition that commercial pressure may constitute duress.
Werrin v The CommonwealthHigh CourtYesWerrin v The Commonwealth (1938) 59 CLR 150AustraliaCited for the principle that if a person elects to pay money to discharge a claim, they cannot recover the money merely because they later find out they could have successfully contested the claim.
In re DaleN/AYes[1994] Ch 31England and WalesCited as an example of mutual wills where a promise to dispose of the estate as agreed was a detriment to the promisor.
Wong Ah Moy v Soo Ah ChoyCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR 398SingaporeCited regarding the capacity to sue as an administratrix of an estate.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

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

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mistake
  • Duress
  • Agreement
  • Beneficiaries
  • Estate
  • Gift
  • Consideration
  • Economic Duress
  • Letters of Administration

15.2 Keywords

  • Mistake
  • Duress
  • Contract
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Family Dispute
  • Estate
  • Gift

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Estate Administration90
Wills and Probate80
Contract Law70
Mistake50
Duress40
Civil Procedure40
Trust Law30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Restitution
  • Probate and Administration