Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian: Domicile Dispute & Estate Duty

In Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by the executor of the estate of Dennis William Pinder for a notation on the grant of probate, asserting that Pinder died domiciled in Singapore. Pinder's widow, Lillian Gek Lian, contested this, claiming he was domiciled in England. The court, led by Andrew Ang J, found in favor of the executor, determining that Pinder had acquired and never abandoned a Singapore domicile of choice. The primary legal issue was determining Pinder's domicile at the time of his death, which had implications for estate duty and inheritance tax.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application granted; the court found that the deceased, Dennis William Pinder, died domiciled in Singapore.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved.

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Executor sought notation on grant of probate, arguing deceased was domiciled in Singapore. Court found deceased died domiciled in Singapore.

1.7 Decision Date

16 April 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Peters Roger May	Applicant, Executor	Individual	Application Granted	Won	Goh Kok Yeow of De Souza Lim & Goh Jason Lim Chen Thor of De Souza Lim & Goh
Pinder Lillian Gek Lian	Respondent, Caveator	Individual	Application Denied	Lost	Deborah Barker of KhattarWong Audra Balasingam of KhattarWong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Kok Yeow	De Souza Lim & Goh
Jason Lim Chen Thor	De Souza Lim & Goh
Deborah Barker	KhattarWong
Audra Balasingam	KhattarWong

4. Facts

Pinder was born in England in 1924 and became a Singapore citizen in 1972.
Pinder worked for Sime Darby in Singapore for many years.
Pinder was convicted of criminal breach of trust and served time in prison in Singapore.
Pinder owned property in Singapore and London.
Pinder made declarations indicating his intention to reside permanently in Singapore.
Pinder spent 11 months in England before his death due to illness.
Pinder had a Singapore passport and a UK passport.

5. Formal Citations

Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian, P 73/2004, SIC 2374/2005, [2009] SGHC 90
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian, , [2006] 2 SLR 381

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1924-01-26	Dennis William Pinder was born in England.
1942-01-01	Pinder joined the British Armed Forces.
1948-01-01	Pinder married his first wife, Joyce.
1953-01-01	Pinder went to Malaya to work as the chief accountant of Sime Darby Ltd.
1959-01-01	Pinder was posted to Sime Darby’s Singapore office.
1965-01-01	Pinder became the managing director and chairman of the Sime Darby group.
1972-03-07	Pinder became a Singapore citizen.
1972-07-01	Pinder married Lillian Gek Lian in South London.
1973-01-01	Pinder was dismissed from Sime Darby.
1975-10-01	Pinder was convicted of three charges of criminal breach of trust.
1975-12-01	Pinder made a will naming the caveator as sole executrix and sole beneficiary.
1976-10-20	Pinder was released from prison.
1984-06-29	Pinder made a will in England with Gordon Dadds Solicitors.
1993-01-01	Pinder and the caveator sold the property at 28 Victoria Park Road.
1993-10-01	Pinder and the caveator purchased a property at 128 Yuk Tong Avenue.
1994-09-01	Pinder purchased a flat at No 89 Whitehall Court.
2003-02-01	Pinder left Singapore for England on a holiday.
2004-01-22	Pinder passed away in England.
2004-04-28	The executor filed a petition seeking the grant of probate of the will.
2004-05-21	The caveator entered an appearance.
2004-08-04	The caveator filed affidavits objecting to the issue of the grant of probate.
2004-08-04	Probate was granted for Pinder’s estate.
2005-05-12	The executor commenced the notation proceedings.

7. Legal Issues

Domicile
- Outcome: The court determined that the deceased, Dennis William Pinder, died domiciled in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Domicile of origin
  - Domicile of choice
  - Abandonment of domicile
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 2 SLR 381
  - (1869) 1 LR Sc & Div 441

8. Remedies Sought

Notation on grant of probate

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Estate Administration
Probate Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Peters Roger May v Pinder Lillian Gek Lian	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR 381	Singapore	Cited for the dismissal of the caveator's application for a stay of the notation proceedings on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Udny v Udny	House of Lords	Yes	(1869) 1 LR Sc & Div 441	United Kingdom	Cited for the principles of domicile of origin and domicile of choice.
Jopp v Wood	N/A	Yes	(1865) 4 DJ & S 616	N/A	Cited for the principle that it is more difficult to prove that a person had abandoned his domicile of origin than to prove that he had abandoned a domicile of choice.
Douglas v Douglas	N/A	Yes	(1871) LR 12 Eq 617	N/A	Cited for the principle that it is more difficult to prove that a person had abandoned his domicile of origin than to prove that he had abandoned a domicile of choice.
Re Wills-Sandford	N/A	Yes	(1897) 41 SJ 366	N/A	Cited for the principle that it is more difficult to prove that a person had abandoned his domicile of origin than to prove that he had abandoned a domicile of choice.
Ramsay v Liverpool Royal Infirmary	House of Lords	Yes	[1930] AC 588	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that it is more difficult to prove that a person had abandoned his domicile of origin than to prove that he had abandoned a domicile of choice.
IRC v Duchess of Portland	Chancery Division	Yes	[1982] Ch 314	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of residence in the context of domicile law.
Att.Gen v Rowe	N/A	Yes	(1862) 1 H&C 31	N/A	Cited to show that if a person intends to reside in a country for a fixed period only, he lacks the animus manendi, however long that period may be.
Eilon v Eilon	N/A	Yes	1965 (1) SA 703	N/A	Cited to show that if a person intends to reside in a country for a fixed period only, he lacks the animus manendi, however long that period may be.
Morgan v Cilento	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2004] EWHC 188 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the two components necessary to establish a domicile of choice: voluntary residence and an intention to remain indefinitely.
I.R.C. v. Bullock	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1976] 1 W.L.R. 1178	England and Wales	Cited for the nature of the intention required to establish a domicile of choice.
Bell v Kennedy	House of Lords	Yes	(1868) LR 1 Sc & Div 307	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that an emigrant’s firm intention to live permanently in a particular country, coupled with his arrival in that country immediately confers on him a domicile of choice in that country.
Doucet v Geoghegan	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1878) 9 Ch D 441 (CA)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the intention which is required for the acquisition of a domicile of choice is the intention to reside permanently or for an unlimited time in a country.
Waddington v Waddington	N/A	Yes	(1920) 36 TLR 359	N/A	Cited for the principle that the intention which is required for the acquisition of a domicile of choice is the intention to reside permanently or for an unlimited time in a country.
Gulbenkian v Gulbenkian	N/A	Yes	[1937] 4 All ER 618	N/A	Cited for the principle that the intention which is required for the acquisition of a domicile of choice is the intention to reside permanently or for an unlimited time in a country.
Re Steer	N/A	Yes	(1858) 3 H&N 594	N/A	Cited to show that the fact that a person contemplates that he might move is not decisive.
Att-Gen v Pottinger	N/A	Yes	(1861) 6 H&N 733	N/A	Cited to show that the fact that a person contemplates that he might move is not decisive.
Att-Gen v Kent	N/A	Yes	(1862) 1 H&C 12	N/A	Cited to show that the fact that a person contemplates that he might move is not decisive.
Drevon v Drevon	N/A	Yes	(1864) 34 LJ Ch 129	N/A	Cited to show that the fact that a person contemplates that he might move is not decisive.
Stanley v Bernes	N/A	Yes	(1830) 3 Hag Ecc 373	N/A	Cited to show that a person who intends to reside indefinitely in a country may be domiciled there in spite of his envisaging the possibility of returning one day to his native country.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1967] P 77	N/A	Cited to show that a person who intends to reside indefinitely in a country may be domiciled there in spite of his envisaging the possibility of returning one day to his native country.
Hyland v Hyland	N/A	Yes	(1971) 18 FLR 461	N/A	Cited to show that a person who intends to reside indefinitely in a country may be domiciled there in spite of his envisaging the possibility of returning one day to his native country.
In the Estate of Fuld (No 3)	N/A	Yes	[1968] P 675	N/A	Cited to show that a clearly foreseen and reasonably anticipated contingency may prevent the acquisition of a domicile of choice.
Bryce v Bryce	N/A	Yes	[1933] P 83	N/A	Cited for the principle that evidence of declarations of intention may be given by way of exception to the hearsay rule.
Scappaticci v AG	N/A	Yes	[1955] P 47	N/A	Cited for the principle that evidence of declarations of intention may be given by way of exception to the hearsay rule.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 234	Singapore	Cited for the principle that evidence of declarations of intention may be given by way of exception to the hearsay rule.
Ross v Ross	House of Lords	Yes	[1930] AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that declarations as to intention are rightly regarded in determining the question of a change of domicile.
Wahl v Attorney-General	House of Lords	Yes	(1932) 147 LT 382	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a statutory declaration ought not to have been given “dominant importance” and not that no weight ought to have been placed on it.
Buswell v Inland Revenue Commissioners	N/A	Yes	[1974] 1 WLR 1631	N/A	Cited for the principle that a statutory declaration ought not to have been given “dominant importance” and not that no weight ought to have been placed on it.
Agulian v Cyganik	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EWCA Civ 129	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court takes into consideration not only the mode but also the place of residence.
Robert Gaines-Cooper v The Commissioner for HM Revenue and Customs	High Court	Yes	[2007] EWHC 2617	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that where a person has more than one residence, it is not necessary for one of them to be the chief residence at any one time.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Constitution (1963 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Constitution (1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Domicile
Domicile of origin
Domicile of choice
Animus manendi
Probate
Estate duty
Inheritance tax
Permanent residence

15.2 Keywords

Domicile
Probate
Singapore
Estate
Inheritance
Executor
Caveator

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Domicile	95
Wills and Probate	90
Succession Law	70
Estate Duty	40
Property Law	30
Evidence Law	20

16. Subjects

Domicile
Probate
Estate Law