ADG v ADH: Construction of Will, Lapse of Residuary Gift, Intestate Succession Act
In ADG (executor and trustee of the estate of B (alias C), deceased) v ADH and another (D and others, interveners) [2009] SGHC 220, the High Court of Singapore addressed the construction of the will of B (alias C), who died on 28 January 2006. The primary legal issue was whether a gift of one-half of the residuary estate to the testator’s son, H (also known as J), lapsed because H predeceased the testator. The court held that the gift lapsed and fell into the residuary estate, to be divided equally among the testator's three surviving sons, D, E, and F.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Declaration that the lapsed gift falls into the residuary estate and is divisible into thirds among the surviving sons.
1.3 Case Type
Probate
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court construed a will, addressing whether a residuary gift lapsed when the beneficiary predeceased the testator and whether it should pass as on intestacy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ADG (executor and trustee of the estate of B (alias C), deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment in favor of Plaintiff | Won | Kelvin Tan, Daniel Chia |
| ADH | Defendant | Individual | Lost | Lost | T P B Menon, Vincent Yeoh |
| D | Intervener | Individual | Partial | Partial | G Raman |
| E | Intervener | Individual | Partial | Partial | Alvin Yeo SC, Sim Bok Eng |
| F | Intervener | Individual | Partial | Partial | Alvin Yeo SC, Sim Bok Eng |
| J | Intervener | Individual | Partial | Partial | Deborah Barker SC |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kelvin Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Daniel Chia | Drew & Napier LLC |
| T P B Menon | Wee Swee Teow & Co |
| Vincent Yeoh | Wee Swee Teow & Co |
| G Raman | G R Law Corporation |
| Alvin Yeo SC | WongPartnership LLP |
| Sim Bok Eng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Deborah Barker SC | KhattarWong |
4. Facts
- The testator died on 28 January 2006.
- The testator was survived by three sons and one daughter.
- One son, H (also known as J), predeceased the testator on 18 December 2004.
- The will, dated 29 November 1996, included a clause directing that if any beneficiary should challenge the will, the challenger’s share would be forfeited.
- Clause 9(j) of the will bequeathed one-half of the residuary estate to H, to be paid one year after the death of the testator's former wife.
- Clause 9(k) bequeathed the remaining one-half of the residuary estate equally among the testator's three sons, D, E, and F, to be paid one year after the death of the testator's former wife.
- Clause 6 of the will directed that none of the gifts should take effect unless the beneficiary survived the testator for a period of one month.
5. Formal Citations
- ADG (executor and trustee of the estate of B (alias C), deceased) v ADH and another (D and others, interveners), OS 687/2008, [2009] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Will executed | |
| H (also known as J) died in a car accident | |
| Testator died | |
| Originating Summons filed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Lapse of Gift
- Outcome: The court held that the gift to the son who predeceased the testator lapsed due to a contrary intention expressed in the will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Effect of survivorship clause
- Application of Section 26 of the Wills Act
- Construction of Will
- Outcome: The court construed the phrase 'fall into residue' to mean that the lapsed gift should be distributed among the remaining residuary legatees, not pass as on intestacy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'fall into residue'
- Intention of testator
8. Remedies Sought
- Determination of beneficiaries' entitlements under the will
9. Cause of Actions
- Construction of Will
10. Practice Areas
- Probate
- Estate Planning
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Will of Loke Soh Lui | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR 370 | Singapore | Cited to determine whether a contrary intention was expressed in the will to prevent the application of section 26 of the Wills Act. |
| Skrymsher v Northcote | N/A | Yes | (1818) 1 Swans 565 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a part of the residue of which the disposition fails does not accrue to the remaining parts as a residue of residue but devolves as undisposed of. |
| Green v Pertwee | N/A | Yes | (1846) 5 Hare 249 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the word 'residue' can be given a wide or restricted interpretation, and that a lapsed share of residue does not pass to other residuary legatees but goes into intestacy. |
| In re Palmer | N/A | Yes | [1893] 3 Ch 369 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a direction that a share of residue is to fall into residue is sufficient to prevent a share of residue, which would otherwise be undisposed of, from going into intestacy. |
| In re Parker | N/A | Yes | [1901] 1 Ch 408 | N/A | Cited as a case that doubted Skrymsher v Northcote. |
| Re Parnell | N/A | Yes | [1944] 1 Ch 107 | N/A | Cited to show that Skrymsher is not now regarded as authority. |
| Re Rhoades | N/A | Yes | [1885] 29 Ch D 142 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a lapsed share should be distributed amongst the surviving brothers as residuary legatees. |
| Re Whiting | N/A | Yes | [1913] 2 Ch 1 | N/A | Cited for the principle that revoked gifts did not fall into intestacy when the testator directed the rest and residue of his estate to be divided equally. |
| Humble v Shore | N/A | Yes | (1847) 7 Hare 247 | N/A | Cited as a case distinguished in Re Rhoades. |
| Crawshaw v Craswshaw | N/A | Yes | (1880) 14 Ch D 817 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the phrase 'shall fall into and become part of my residuary personal estate' did not amount to intestacy because it was followed by the phrase 'and be paid and applied according to the trusts of my will.' |
| In re Judkin’s Trust | N/A | Yes | (1884) 25 Ch D 743 | N/A | Cited for the principle that there was no intestacy because the testator specifically stated that the 'rest and residue of his residuary estate' should go to X and Y. |
| In re Allan | N/A | Yes | [1903] 1 Ch 276 | N/A | Cited as a case that followed In re Palmer. |
| Blight v Hartnoll | N/A | Yes | (1883) 23 Ch 218 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a lapsed specific devise or specific bequest falls into residue. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Residuary estate
- Lapse
- Survivorship clause
- Contrary intention
- Intestacy
- Residue
- Beneficiary
- Will
- Testator
15.2 Keywords
- Will
- Residuary Estate
- Lapse
- Intestacy
- Construction
- Singapore
- High Court
- Beneficiary
- Estate
16. Subjects
- Wills
- Trusts
- Estate Law
- Succession
17. Areas of Law
- Succession and Wills
- Construction
- Lapse