Tan Ah Thee v Lim Soo Foong: Declaration of Marriage Validity & Undue Influence
Tan Ah Thee and another, as administrators of the estate of Tan Kiam Poh, deceased, sought a declaration in the High Court of Singapore on April 27, 2009, that there was no valid marriage between the deceased and Lim Soo Foong. The plaintiffs argued the marriage was voidable due to non-consummation and undue influence, and a sham against public policy. Judith Prakash J. dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, striking out the statement of claim, holding that the Women's Charter provides a complete code on the law applicable to marriages in Singapore and the High Court does not have the power to grant the plaintiffs' application for the voidable marriage between the deceased and the defendant to be made prospectively void.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' statement of claim is struck out and the plaintiffs' claim is dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Administrators sought to invalidate a marriage, alleging undue influence and non-consummation. The court struck out the claim, affirming the marriage's validity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Ah Thee And Another (administrators of the estate of Tan Kiam Poh (alias Tan Gna Chua), deceased) | Plaintiff, Appellant | Other | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Soo Foong | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alma Yong | Lee & Lee |
| Julian Tay | Lee & Lee |
| Nicholas Narayanan | Nicholas & Co |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are administrators of the estate of the deceased, Tan Kiam Poh.
- The deceased was married twice; his first wife was Mdm Koh, with whom he had six children.
- The plaintiffs are two of Mdm Koh’s children.
- The deceased had an extramarital relationship with the defendant, resulting in a son.
- The defendant and her son moved into the deceased’s home after Mdm Koh’s death.
- The defendant and her son allegedly took control of the deceased’s person and property.
- The defendant and the deceased were married on March 11, 1996, when he was 81 and suffering from Parkinson’s disease.
- The plaintiffs allege the marriage was never consummated and was procured by undue influence.
- The plaintiffs seek a declaration that there was no valid marriage between the deceased and the defendant.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Ah Thee And Another (administrators of the estate of Tan Kiam Poh (alias Tan Gna Chua), deceased) v Lim Soo Foong, Suit 775/2008, RA 48/2009, 49/2009, [2009] SGHC 101
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mdm Koh’s death | |
| Marriage solemnised between the defendant and the deceased | |
| Deceased executed a will | |
| Deceased passed away | |
| Plaintiffs commenced legal proceedings to seek a declaration that the 2000 Will was invalid | |
| Grant of Letters of Administration was extracted and issued to the plaintiffs jointly | |
| Defendant’s application vide Summons 5225 of 2008 (“SUM 5225/2008”) to strike out the plaintiffs’ claim | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Marriage
- Outcome: The court held that the marriage was valid and dismissed the plaintiffs' claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Undue influence
- Non-consummation
- Sham marriage
- Power of High Court to make declarations of right
- Outcome: The court held that the High Court does possess the power to make declarations of the kind sought by the plaintiffs in the present case.
- Category: Jurisdictional
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that there was no valid and subsisting marriage
- Declaration that the marriage is null and void
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration of Invalid Marriage
10. Practice Areas
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the standard which must be satisfied before the court can exercise the power to strike out any pleading which discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | N/A | Yes | [1970] 1 All ER 1094 | N/A | Cited for the guiding principle in determining what a “reasonable cause of action” is under O 18 r 19(1)(a). |
| Lawrence Au Poh Weng v Annie Tan Huay Lian | High Court | Yes | [1972] 2 M.L.J. 124 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's decision that it had no jurisdiction to make any of the declarations of marital status sought by the parties. |
| Moh Ah Kiu v Central Provident Fund Board | N/A | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR 569 | Singapore | Cited for the issue was not expressly argued and all parties took the view that the court could grant the declaration asked for. |
| Salijah bte Ab Lateh v Mohd Irwan Abdullah | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR 63 | Singapore | Cited for the decision that the provisions of the SCJA allow the court to make binding declarations of right whether or not any consequential relief is or could be claimed. |
| De Reneville v De Reneville | N/A | Yes | [1948] 1 All E.R. 56 | N/A | Cited for the classical explanation of the distinction between void and voidable marriages. |
| Void and Voidable Marriages | N/A | Yes | [1964] 27 MLR 385 | N/A | Cited for the explanation of the distinction between a void and a voidable marriage. |
| Re Estate of Liu Sinn Minn | N/A | Yes | [1975-1977] SLR 81 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that any one having an interest in the existence or non-existence of a marriage may seek a declaration of the validity of the marriage. |
| Re Estate of Pang Soo Ho | N/A | Yes | [1982-1983] SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that any one having an interest in the existence or non-existence of a marriage may seek a declaration of the validity of the marriage. |
| Arpinya Rongchotiawattana v Wee Oh Keng | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 520 | Singapore | Cited to demonstrate that any one having an interest in the existence or non-existence of a marriage may seek a declaration of the validity of the marriage. |
| Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 656 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's disagreement that the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court allowed the court to go against the clear words of the Rules. |
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the statement that if there is an existing rule already covering the situation at hand, the courts would generally not invoke its inherent powers. |
| In re Roberts, Decd. | English High Court | Yes | [1978] 1 WLR 653 | England | Supports the views expressed as to the effect of the change in the law on the powers of the court. |
| Westminster City Council v C | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 WLR 185 | England | Cited for the holding that in England, on the basis of the changes to the law originally effected by the Nullity of Marriage Act 1971, where either party to a marriage did not validly consent to it in consequence of unsoundness of mind the marriage was voidable rather than void and remained valid unless and until it was annulled. |
| Lim Ying v Eric Hiok | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 184 | Singapore | Cited to support the view that there are grounds outside s 105 upon which a marriage may be declared void. |
| In the Marriage of V K and V Kapadia | N/A | Yes | [1991] 14 Fam LR 883 | Australia | Cited in support of the plaintiffs’ application. |
| Vervaeke (formerly Messina) v Smith | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] AC 145 | England | Cited for the holding that, as ‘horrible and sordid’ as the marriage was, the marriage was valid. |
| Kwong Sin Hwa v Lau Lee Yen | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the approval of Punch Coomarasamy J’s statement in Ng Bee Hoon v Tan Heok Boon. |
| Ng Bee Hoon v Tan Heok Boon | N/A | Yes | [1992] SLR 112 | Singapore | Cited for the statement that if a man and a woman exchange consents to marry with due formality before a person lawfully authorized to solemnize a marriage under the Charter, intending to acquire the status of married persons, it is immaterial that they intend the marriage to take effect in some limited way. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18, rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Marriage validity
- Undue influence
- Non-consummation
- Void marriage
- Voidable marriage
- Declaratory jurisdiction
- Matrimonial jurisdiction
- Women’s Charter
- Intestate Succession Act
- Letters of Administration
15.2 Keywords
- marriage
- void
- voidable
- undue influence
- non-consummation
- declaration
- estate
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Family Law | 90 |
| Void marriage | 70 |
| Voidable Marriage | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Succession Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Family Law
- Matrimonial Law
- Civil Procedure
- Estate Law