Kuek Siew Chew v Kuek Siang Wei: Intestate Succession, Family Arrangement, Undue Influence
In Kuek Siew Chew v Kuek Siang Wei, the High Court of Singapore addressed a family dispute over the estate of Kuek Ser Beng (KSB), who died intestate. The plaintiff, Kuek Siew Chew, KSB's daughter, sued the defendants, Kuek Siang Wei and Kuek Tsing Hsia, KSB's grandchildren and administrators of his estate, challenging the validity of a letter of consent, a deed of consent, and a deed of family arrangement that directed the estate's distribution according to an unsigned note by KSB. The court allowed the plaintiff's claim in part, setting aside the three instruments and ordering the estate to be distributed according to the Intestate Succession Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Family dispute over KSB's estate. The court set aside the letter of consent, deed of consent, and deed of family arrangement, ordering distribution per the Intestate Succession Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuek Siang Wei | Defendant | Individual | Orders Set Aside | Lost | |
| Kuek Tsing Hsia | Defendant | Individual | Orders Set Aside | Lost | |
| Kuek Siew Chew | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed in Part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gopalan Raman | KhattarWong LLP |
| Tng Kim Choon | KC Tng Law Practice |
4. Facts
- KSB passed away intestate on 30 January 2007.
- KSB had two families: one with LS and another with GAP.
- An unsigned note was found in KSB's safe, outlining his wishes for asset distribution.
- The Plaintiff, KSC, is KSB's daughter from his first family.
- The Defendants, KSW and KTH, are KSB's grandchildren and administrators of his estate.
- A letter of consent, a deed of consent, and a deed of family arrangement were executed to distribute KSB's assets according to the unsigned note.
- The Plaintiff challenged the validity of these instruments, arguing they were unfair and based on incomplete information.
5. Formal Citations
- Kuek Siew Chew v Kuek Siang Wei and another, Suit No 966 of 2012, [2014] SGHC 237
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| KSB purportedly wrote a note setting out the division of his assets. | |
| KSB passed away without leaving a will. | |
| LS executed a deed of consent. | |
| Letter of consent signed by all 17 parties named in the note. | |
| KHE applied for the grant of letters of administration in respect of KSB’s estate. | |
| KHE and HPJ sought the assistance of M/s Sankar Ow & Partners LLP to resist GAP’s application. | |
| Mr Chia issued a written advice to KHE informing him that there was a possibility that the letter of consent might not be upheld by the court. | |
| Beneficiaries executed a deed of consent. | |
| Deed of family arrangement executed between the first family and the second family. | |
| Named beneficiaries under the deed of family arrangement were present at the office of M/s Sankar Ow & Partners LLP to receive their respective shares of KSB’s assets. | |
| LS passed away. | |
| KHE passed away. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Letter of Consent
- Outcome: The court held that the letter of consent was not a valid deed or contract and did not constitute a valid family arrangement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Lack of consideration
- Absence of a valid deed
- Gross inadequacy of consideration
- Validity of Deed of Consent
- Outcome: The court held that the deed of consent was invalid due to material non-disclosure.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Non est factum
- Lack of independent legal advice
- Undue influence
- Material non-disclosure
- Validity of Deed of Family Arrangement
- Outcome: The court held that the deed of family arrangement was invalid as the defendants lacked the authority to enter into it and the doctrine of relation back and s 56(1) of the Trustees Act were not applicable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Authority of defendants to act on behalf of the first family
- Doctrine of relation back
- Application of s 56(1) of the Trustees Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the letter of consent
- Setting aside the deed of consent
- Setting aside the deed of family arrangement
- Distribution of KSB's assets in accordance with the ISA
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Setting Aside of Deed
- Undue Influence
10. Practice Areas
- Probate
- Estate Administration
- Family Arrangements
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hishiya Seiko Co Ltd v Wah Nam Plastic Industry Pte Ltd and Another | High Court | Yes | [1993] SGHC 7 | Singapore | Dealt with the issue of a deed of guarantee that was not sealed by the parties and whether a purported deed can be construed and validated as a contract. |
| Stromdale & Ball Ld v Burden | N/A | Yes | [1952] 1 Ch 223 | England | Illustrated that a document with a signature duly attested to and which bore a wax or wafer or other indication of a seal would give rise to a valid deed. |
| First National Securities Ltd v Jones and Another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1978] 1 Ch 109 | England | Found that a circle with the letters “L.S” amounted to a seal. |
| White v Bluett | N/A | Yes | (1853) 23 LJ Ex 36 | N/A | A father agreed to release his son from a debt if the son would stop complaining about the manner in which he had distributed his assets. The promise was held not to bind the father since the son’s offer to cease complaining was something he was morally obliged to do. |
| Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 QB 1 | England | The court upheld a promise by A to pay additional money to B to complete work already agreed to be performed by B in circumstances where B’s slow performance exposed A to liability under another contract. |
| Sheares Betty Hang Kiu v Chow Kwok Chi | N/A | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 285 | Singapore | Considered the issue of validity of a deed of family arrangement at length. |
| Pek Nam Kee and another v Peh Lam Kong and another | N/A | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 750 | Singapore | Addressed the issue of gross inadequacy of consideration in family arrangements and the state of knowledge of the parties concerned. |
| Lee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Explained the defence of non est factum in the context of deeds. |
| Saunders v Anglia Building Society | N/A | Yes | [1971] AC 1004 | N/A | Discussed the plea of non est factum. |
| Cocking v Pratt | N/A | Yes | (1749-50) 1 Ves Sen 400 | N/A | Addressed the issue of material non-disclosure in family arrangements. |
| Groves v Perkins | N/A | Yes | (1834) 6 Sim 576 | N/A | Addressed the issue of material non-disclosure in family arrangements. |
| Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Ching Miow, deceased) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 159 | Singapore | Considered the doctrine of relation back in the context of probate and administration. |
| Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 211 | Singapore | Observed that s 56(1) of the Trustees Act deals with the situation where there is the absence of a trustee power to manage the trust property, and the court finds that it is expedient to confer such power on the trustee. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Referred to the earlier Court of Appeal decision of Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy [1998] 2 SLR(R) 434 and held at [11] that the court’s power under s 56(1) of the TA in relation to the management and administration of trust property were limited by the express terms of the trust instrument. |
| Rajabali Jumabhoy v Ameerali R Jumabhoy | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 434 | Singapore | Addressed the court’s power under s 56(1) of the TA in relation to the management and administration of trust property were limited by the express terms of the trust instrument. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Intestate Succession Act
- Family Arrangement
- Deed of Consent
- Letter of Consent
- Material Non-Disclosure
- Undue Influence
- Doctrine of Relation Back
- Trustees Act
- Beneficiaries
- Administrators
15.2 Keywords
- intestate succession
- family dispute
- deed of consent
- letter of consent
- family arrangement
- undue influence
- material non-disclosure
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Estate Administration | 95 |
| Succession Law | 90 |
| Trust Law | 60 |
| Family Dispute Resolution | 50 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
| Property Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts and Estates
- Family Law
- Succession Law
- Civil Procedure