Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi: Enforceability of Settlement Agreement After Plaintiff's Death

In Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the enforceability of a settlement agreement after the original plaintiff's death. The plaintiff, Maran s/o Kannakasabai, suffered severe injuries in a motor accident, and the defendant, Teo Gim Tiong, made an offer to settle. After Maran's death, his mother, Krishnasamy Pushpavathi, attempted to accept the offer before obtaining letters of administration. The court allowed the appeal, holding that the mother lacked the legal capacity to accept the settlement offer on behalf of the estate before obtaining the necessary legal authorization.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal on whether a settlement offer was validly accepted after the plaintiff's death. The court held that the victim's mother had no capacity to accept the offer.

1.7 Decision Date

23 July 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Teo Gim Tiong	Appellant, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	N K Rajarh of M Rama Law Corporation M Ramasamy of M Rama Law Corporation
Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased)	Respondent, Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Ramesh Appoo of Just Law LLC Susila Ganesan of Just Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
N K Rajarh	M Rama Law Corporation
M Ramasamy	M Rama Law Corporation
Ramesh Appoo	Just Law LLC
Susila Ganesan	Just Law LLC

4. Facts

Maran was severely injured in a traffic accident in 2006.
The Appellant admitted 40% liability for the accident.
The Appellant made an Offer to Settle for $500,000.
Maran passed away intestate before accepting the offer.
Mdm Pushpavathi obtained a substitution order before applying for letters of administration.
Mdm Pushpavathi purported to accept the Offer to Settle after Maran's death.
The Appellant sought to withdraw the Offer to Settle after Maran's death.

5. Formal Citations

Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi, Civil Appeal No 132 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 38
Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi, , [2013] SGHC 178

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-07-22	Maran s/o Kannakasabi injured in a traffic accident.
2007-04-12	Krishnasamy Pushpavathi appointed Committee of Persons to manage her son’s affairs.
2009-01-30	Mdm Pushpavathi filed a writ of summons against the Appellant.
2009-12-14	Consent interlocutory judgment entered; Appellant admitted 40% liability.
2011-09-06	Appellant made the Offer to Settle.
2012-02-17	Maran made a counter-offer to settle for $850,000.
2012-03-29	Maran passed away.
2012-04-12	Mdm Pushpavathi applied for and obtained a substitution order.
2012-04-12	Appellant’s solicitors sent a letter to the Respondent’s solicitors giving notice of intention to withdraw the Offer to Settle.
2012-04-13	Respondent served notice of acceptance of the Offer to Settle.
2012-04-13	Appellant served notice of withdrawal of the Offer to Settle.
2012-12-28	Respondent filed for judgment in the Subordinate Court in terms of the Offer to Settle.
2013-05-03	Judgment in terms was entered.
2013-07-03	Appellant's appeal to the District Judge in Chambers was dismissed.
2014-03-20	First hearing of the appeal.
2014-05-21	Second hearing of the appeal; appeal allowed.
2014-07-24	Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

Capacity to Accept Settlement Offer
- Outcome: The court held that the Respondent lacked the capacity to accept the settlement offer on behalf of the estate before obtaining letters of administration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Lack of letters of administration
  - Validity of substitution order
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] SGHC 178
  - [1944] 1 KB 160
  - [1946] 1 KB 65
  - [1953] 1 QB 688
  - [2011] EWCA Civ 577
Validity of Substitution Order
- Outcome: The court held that the substitution order was premature and improper because the Respondent had not been appointed administratrix of Maran’s estate at the time the substitution order was obtained.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Full and frank disclosure
  - Interpretation of Order 15 Rule 7(2)
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] SGCA 26
  - [1991] 2 MLJ 174
  - [2009] SGHC 127
  - [1998] 1 SLR(R) 876
  - [1995] 3 SLR(R) 822

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Appeals
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 178	Singapore	The High Court judge answered the question in the positive that a settlement agreement had come into being upon acceptance by the mother of the victim. The Appellant appealed against the ruling of the Judge.
Lee Han Tiong and others v Tay Yok Swee	N/A	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 833	Singapore	Cited for the principle that executorship takes effect from the moment of death, so there is no need for probate before the executor can apply to be substituted in place of the deceased in the action.
Chay Chong Hwa and others v Seah Mary	N/A	Yes	[1983–1984] SLR(R) 505	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is only when the grant is extracted that the person to whom the grant is made is finally clothed with the authority to deal with the estate.
Ingall v Moran	N/A	Yes	[1944] 1 KB 160	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an administrator is not entitled to sue until administration is granted, and the doctrine of relation back cannot be invoked to render an action competent that was incompetent when the writ was issued.
Hilton v Sutton Steam Laundry	N/A	Yes	[1946] 1 KB 65	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an action commenced by a plaintiff as administratrix without having obtained letters of administration is a nullity.
Finnegan v Cementation Co Ld	N/A	Yes	[1953] 1 QB 688	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an action commenced by a plaintiff in a representative capacity which the plaintiff does not in fact possess is a nullity.
Millburn-Snell and others v Evans	N/A	Yes	[2011] EWCA Civ 577	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an action commenced by a claimant purportedly as an administrator, when the claimant does not have that capacity, is a nullity.
Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hongkong) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] SGCA 26	Singapore	Cited for the principle that O 2 r 1 of the Rules of Court removes the distinction between nullities and irregularities, so any omission or mistake in practice or procedure would be regarded as an irregularity which could be rectified by the court.
Government of Malaysia & Anor v Taib bin Abdul Rahman	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 MLJ 174	Malaysia	Cited by the respondent, but distinguished by the court.
Tan Keaw Chong v Chua Tiong Guan and Another	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 127	Singapore	Cited by the respondent, but distinguished by the court.
Chern Chiow Yong and others v Cheng Chew Chin	N/A	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 876	Singapore	Cited by the respondent, but distinguished by the court.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 619	Singapore	Cited for the principle of reddendo singula singulis.
Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy	N/A	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 822	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of O 15 r 15(1) of the Rules of Court.
Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 27	Singapore	Mentioned in passing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 15 r 7(2)
Rules of Court O 15 r 9(1)
Rules of Court O 15 r 6A(4)(a)
Rules of Court O 15 r 15(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 10(1)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 37(1)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 37(4)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Offer to Settle
Letters of Administration
Substitution Order
Capacity to Act
Intestate
Personal Representative
Relation Back
Nullity

15.2 Keywords

settlement agreement
letters of administration
substitution order
capacity
intestate
civil procedure
contract law
estate

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Automobile Accidents	75
Personal Injury	70
Estate Administration	65
Civil Procedure	60
Offer and Acceptance	55
Settlement Agreement	50
Contract Law	50
Legal Representation	45
Wills and Probate	40
Property Law	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Settlement Agreements
Estate Administration