AEL v Cheo Yeoh: Solicitor Negligence & Wills Act Compliance
In AEL and others v Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC and another, the Singapore High Court addressed a negligence claim against a solicitor, Cheo, for failing to properly supervise the execution of a will, resulting in its invalidity. The plaintiffs, disappointed beneficiaries under the defective will, sued for damages equivalent to the difference between what they would have received under the will and what they received under intestacy, plus expenses for Indonesian solicitors. The court allowed the plaintiffs' claim, finding Cheo liable for negligence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court found a solicitor negligent for failing to ensure a will's proper execution, causing financial loss to beneficiaries.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AEL | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Won, Won | Andrew Ho Yew Cheng |
| AEM | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Won, Won | Andrew Ho Yew Cheng |
| AEN | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Won, Won | Andrew Ho Yew Cheng |
| Other Grandchildren | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Won, Won | Andrew Ho Yew Cheng |
| Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Lost, Lost | Chandra Mohan Rethnam, Mrinalini Singh |
| Cheo | Defendant | Individual | Claim Allowed, Claim Allowed | Lost, Lost | Chandra Mohan Rethnam, Mrinalini Singh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew Ho Yew Cheng | Engelin Teh Practice LLC |
| Chandra Mohan Rethnam | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Mrinalini Singh | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- The Testator, an Indonesian businessman, made a will (New Will) in Singapore to distribute his assets.
- The New Will was intended to replace an earlier will (Old Will) made jointly with his deceased wife.
- The New Will was discovered to be defective as it was executed in the presence of only one witness.
- The application for probate was rejected due to non-compliance with s 6(2) of the Wills Act.
- Letters of administration were granted, and the Testator’s estate was distributed under the Intestate Succession Act.
- The plaintiffs, disappointed beneficiaries, claimed the solicitor was negligent in supervising the New Will’s execution.
- The solicitor, Cheo, was engaged to draft and execute the New Will.
5. Formal Citations
- AEL and others v Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC and another, Suit No 822 of 2011/E, [2014] SGHC 129
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Old Will executed | |
| Testator’s wife passed away | |
| Testator contacted Cheo regarding the New Will | |
| New Will executed | |
| Testator died | |
| AEL informed Cheo of Testator's death | |
| Application for letters of probate filed | |
| Application for letters of probate rejected | |
| Cheo advised AEL on options, including applying for letters of administration | |
| Cheo ceased acting for AEL and AEN | |
| Application for letters of administration granted | |
| Statement of Inheritance witnessed by a notary officer in Indonesia | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the solicitor negligent for failing to ensure the proper execution of the will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation of loss
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- [2014] SGCA 34
- [1995] 2 AC 207
- Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the solicitor owed a duty of care to the beneficiaries of the will.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of duty
- Proximity
- Policy considerations
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- [2014] SGCA 34
- [1995] 2 AC 207
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the solicitor breached his duty by failing to ensure the will was executed in compliance with the Wills Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with Wills Act
- Improper execution of will
- Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the solicitor's negligence was the direct cause of the beneficiaries' loss.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intervening cause
- Remoteness of damage
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Estate Planning
- Professional Liability
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage framework for approaching the duty question. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] SGCA 34 | Singapore | Cited for solicitor's duty to third parties and the application of the Spandeck framework. |
| White and another v Jones and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 207 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a solicitor owes a duty of care to the disappointed beneficiaries of a will. |
| Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] 1 AC 465 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles of assumption of responsibility and reliance in establishing liability for negligent misstatements. |
| Ross v Caunters | Chancery Division | Yes | [1980] 1 Ch 297 | England and Wales | Cited for the duty of care owed by a solicitor to a disappointed beneficiary under a defective will. |
| M’Alister (or Donoghue) (Pauper) v Stevenson | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | Scotland | Cited for the test for physical loss. |
| Hill (trading as R F Hill & Associates) v Van Erp | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1997) 142 ALR 687 | Australia | Cited for imposing liability on solicitors to beneficiaries. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 202 | Singapore | Cited as the first instance decision of the Anwar case. |
| White and another v Jones and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 All ER 481 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the argument that imposing liability on the solicitor would effectively double the size of the client's estate. |
| Gartside v Sheffield, Young & Ellis | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] NZLR 37 | New Zealand | Cited for the solicitor’s professional role in the community. |
| Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven & Co | New York Court of Appeals | Yes | 255 NY 170 (1931) | United States | Cited regarding the imposition of liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class. |
| Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon Kwee | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 146 | Singapore | Cited for the legitimacy of using policy reasoning. |
| Ann Maria Welch v Nathaniel Philips | Judicial Committee of the Privy Council | Yes | (1836) 1 Moo PCC 299 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rationale for the evidentiary presumption of revocation animo revocandi. |
| Lim Boon Ming v Tiang Choo Yang | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 456 | Singapore | Cited for the presumption of revocation animo revocandi. |
| Dancer v Crabb and Thompson | Probate Division | Yes | (1873) LR 3 P&D 98 | England and Wales | Cited for the application of the doctrine of conditional revocation. |
| Homerton and another v Hewett | Court of Probate | Yes | (1872) 25 LT 854 | England and Wales | Cited for the requirement of proof of actual destruction of the Old Will by the Testator for the doctrine of conditional revocation. |
| In the Estate of Botting | Probate Division | Yes | [1951] 2 All ER 997 | England and Wales | Cited for the clarification that the will’s destruction need not be proven by direct evidence. |
| In the Estate of Bridgewater, decd | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 416 | England and Wales | Cited for the requirement of some evidence to satisfy the court that the will had been destroyed. |
| Ferneley v Napier and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2010] EWHC 3345 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited for the standard of proof required to make out allegations of a conspiracy. |
| Syed Abbas bin Mohamed Alsagoff and another v Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura) | High Court | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 136 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between trustees and executors. |
| In the Goods of Adamson | Court of Probate | Yes | (1875) LR 3 P&D 253 | England and Wales | Cited for the essential duties of an executor. |
| In the Goods of Russell; In the Goods of Laird | Probate Division | Yes | [1892] P 380 | England and Wales | Cited for instances where trustees were held to be executors according to the tenor. |
| In the Goods of Punchard | Court of Probate | Yes | (1872) LR 2 P&D 369 | England and Wales | Cited for instances where trustees were not considered executors according to the tenor. |
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 |
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Negligence
- Will
- Beneficiary
- Duty of Care
- Execution
- Intestacy
- Probate
- Solicitor
- Wills Act
- Testator
15.2 Keywords
- Negligence
- Will
- Solicitor
- Beneficiary
- Singapore
- Wills Act
- Probate
- Intestacy
16. Subjects
- Wills and Estates
- Professional Negligence
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Tort of Negligence
- Wills and Probate
- Professional Negligence