Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan: Estate Dispute over Inheritance and Breach of Trust

In Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and another, the High Court of Singapore heard a dispute between siblings regarding the estates of their deceased parents. The plaintiff, Lim Siew Bee, alleged that the defendants, Lim Boh Chuan and Lim Puay Koon, dishonestly and in breach of trust dealt with assets belonging to their parents’ estates, diminishing their values and benefitting themselves at her expense. The plaintiff sought an account of both estates. The defendants denied the allegations and sought relief under s 63 of the Trustees Act. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding a lack of evidence to support the allegations of dishonesty and breach of trust, and that some claims were time-barred.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed in their entirety with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings' dispute over parents' estates, alleging dishonest dealings and breach of trust. Court dismisses claims due to lack of evidence and time bar.

1.7 Decision Date

4 March 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Siew Bee	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Chelva Rajah of KhattarWong LLP Gopalan Raman of KhattarWong LLP Khaleel Namazie of KhattarWong LLP
Lim Boh Chuan	Defendant	Individual	Claims Dismissed	Won	Zhuo Jiaxiang of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC Una Khng of Drew & Napier LLC Natasha M Sabnani of Drew & Napier LLC
Lim Puay Koon	Defendant	Individual	Claims Dismissed	Won	Zhuo Jiaxiang of Drew & Napier LLC Davinder Singh of Drew & Napier LLC Una Khng of Drew & Napier LLC Natasha M Sabnani of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chelva Rajah	KhattarWong LLP
Gopalan Raman	KhattarWong LLP
Khaleel Namazie	KhattarWong LLP
Zhuo Jiaxiang	Drew & Napier LLC
Davinder Singh	Drew & Napier LLC
Una Khng	Drew & Napier LLC
Natasha M Sabnani	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The plaintiff alleged the defendants dishonestly dealt with assets from their parents' estates.
The father made inter vivos gifts within five years of his death.
The mother made a will bequeathing property to the plaintiff and defendants.
The plaintiff and defendants entered into a Deed of Family Arrangement (DFA).
The plaintiff claimed she was misled about the value of LTSE shares.
The plaintiff lied to the court about the mother dying intestate.
The father transferred shares in HHS to D1.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and another, Suit No 3of 2012, [2014] SGHC 41

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1941-01-01	Steel and hardware partnership business founded by Lim Hong Choon, Lim Boon Wan and Lim Boon Kee.
1973-01-01	Partnership converted into a private limited company called Hup Seng Huat Co (Pte) Ltd.
1978-05-12	Lim Tian Siong Enterprise Pte Ltd (LTSE) incorporated by the father.
1981-01-01	Father transferred 2,000 shares in HHS to D1.
1981-06-08	D1 appointed a director of Lim Tian Siong Enterprise Pte Ltd (LTSE).
1982-07-09	Defendants allotted one share each in LTSE.
1983-01-01	Father sold two blocks of shares in Eastern Win.
1983-07-16	Defendants allotted two shares each in LTSE.
1983-07-01	Father sold shares in Eastern Win, TSM and Hup Seng Huat to LTSE.
1983-08-23	Father passed away intestate.
1984-08-01	Petition for the Letters of Administration granted.
1989-01-01	Mother diagnosed with cancer.
1990-03-16	Mother made her Will.
1991-03-25	Commissioner provided assessment of estate duty payable on the father’s dutiable estate.
1991-09-01	Grant of the Letters of Administration extracted after estate duty was assessed and paid.
1992-03-18	Letter of Consent signed to transfer interests in Father's LTSE Share to D2.
1992-06-23	Mother signed transfer form to transfer her one LTSE share to D1.
1992-07-26	Mother died.
1993-01-09	Plaintiff and D2 filed a petition for the grant of Letters of Administration in the mother’s estate.
1994-01-01	Hup Seng Huat converted into a public limited company and changed its name to Hup Seng Huat Co Ltd in January 1994.
1994-02-04	Hup Seng Huat Co Ltd listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange Main Board.
1994-03-16	Grant of the Letters of Administration in relation to the mother’s estate was extracted.
1994-04-11	Parties entered into the Deed of Family Arrangement (DFA).
2006-04-01	LTSE was eventually struck off as a registered entity.
2008-01-01	Two nationals from the People’s Republic of China commenced proceedings against the siblings.
2009-06-12	Plaintiff wrote to D1 seeking a return of all that was due to her under the parents’ estates.
2010-03-01	China Party Action was eventually dismissed.
2010-10-18	Plaintiff wrote to D1 as a follow up to her 12 June 2009 letter.
2011-01-11	Plaintiff was sent the DFK Accounts.
2012-01-03	Plaintiff commenced the present action.
2014-03-05	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of breach of trust by the defendants.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to properly administer estate assets
  - Dishonest dealings with estate assets
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendants.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Misrepresentation of asset value
  - Inducement to transfer assets
Estate Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the executor did not breach his duty in paying the estate duty for the donees.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Liability for estate duty on inter vivos gifts
  - Executor's duty to recoup estate duty
Limitation
- Outcome: The court found that some of the plaintiff's claims were time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Statute barred claims
  - Discovery of fraud

8. Remedies Sought

Account of the two estates
Liberty to falsify or surcharge the accounts
Payment to the plaintiff of her due share

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Trust
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

Estate Litigation
Trust Litigation
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
In Re Hole Davies v Witts	High Court	Yes	[1905] 2 Ch 384	England and Wales	Cited regarding the requirement of a request from a donee to an executor for payment of estate duty.
Meyrick v Hargreaves	High Court	Yes	[1897] 1 Ch 99	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a request may be impliedly made if the executor and the person accountable for the duty are the same person.
Ng Eng Ghee & Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109	Singapore	Cited regarding the duty of a trustee to act in good faith, responsibly and reasonably even when taking legal advice.
Bartlett and Others v Barclays Bank Trust Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1980] 1 Ch 515	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of 'fraud' in the context of s 22(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Applegate v Moss	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971] 1 QB 406	England and Wales	Cited regarding the application of s 22 of the Limitation Act when the defendant's conduct hides the plaintiff's right of action.
King v Victor Parsons & Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1973] 1 WLR 29	England and Wales	Cited regarding the defendant's awareness of committing a wrong or breach of contract in relation to fraud.
Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co (a firm)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 All ER 400	England and Wales	Cited regarding the interpretation of 'could with reasonable diligence have discovered it' in s 29 of the Limitation Act.
Peco Arts Inc v Hazlitt Gallery Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1983] 3 All ER 193	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a case regarding the interpretation of 'could with reasonable diligence have discovered it' in s 29 of the Limitation Act.
Re Lucking's Will Trusts	High Court	Yes	[1967] 3 All ER 726	England and Wales	Cited regarding the common law standard of care expected of an administrator in the management of the affairs of an estate.
Panatron Pte Ltd and Another v Lee Cheow Lee and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for the five essential elements to proving fraudulent misrepresentation.
Abdul Latif bin Mohammed Tahiar (trading as Canary Agencies) v Saeed Husain s/o Hakim Gulam Mohiudin (trading as United Limousine)	High Court	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 61	Singapore	Cited for the principle that parties stand by their pleaded case.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292	Singapore	Cited regarding the principle that a party seeking equitable relief must come to the Court with 'clean hands'.
Dering v Earl of Winchelsea	Court of Chancery	Yes	[1775-1802]	England and Wales	Cited regarding the principle that the undesirable behaviour in question must involve more than general depravity.
Moody v Cox	Court of Chancery	Yes	[1917] 2 Ch 71	England and Wales	Cited regarding the principle that the taint must have a necessary and essential relation to the contract which is sued upon.
Sheares Betty Hang Kiu v Chow Kwok Chi and others	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 285	Singapore	Cited for the definition and legal significance of a 'family arrangement'.
Pek Nam Kee v Peh Lam Kong	High Court	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 750	Singapore	Cited regarding the setting aside of a family arrangement due to undue influence or dishonest non-disclosure of material facts.
Derry v Peek	House of Lords	Yes	[1889] 14 App Cas 337	United Kingdom	Cited for the development of the tort of deceit.
Pasley v Freeman	King's Bench	Yes	[1789] 3 Term Rep 51	England and Wales	Cited for the establishment of the tort of deceit.
Bradford Building Society v Borders	House of Lords	Yes	[1941] 2 All ER 205	United Kingdom	Cited for the essential elements of the tort of deceit.
Re Keele Estates (No. 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1952] 2 All ER 164	England and Wales	Cited regarding the apportionment of estate duty amongst beneficiaries.
The Gold Ores Reduction Company v Parr	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1892] 2 QB 14	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that parties stand by their pleaded case.
Novotel Societe D' Investissements Et D' Exploitation Hoteliers v Pernas Hotel Chain (Selangor) Bhd	Federal Court	Yes	[1987] 1 MLJ 210	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that parties stand by their pleaded case.
Spedding v Fitzpatrick	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1888] 38 Ch D 410	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that parties stand by their pleaded case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Estate Duty Act (Cap 96, 1970 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Estate duty
Inter vivos gifts
Deed of Family Arrangement
LTSE shares
Letters of Administration
Breach of trust
Fraudulent misrepresentation
Account of estate
Parity of exchange
Donee rule

15.2 Keywords

estate
trust
inheritance
fraud
family arrangement
estate duty
inter vivos gifts
limitation
breach of trust
misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	95
Trust Law	70
Breach of Fiduciary Duty	65
Succession Law	60
Fraud and Deceit	40
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Estates
Inheritance
Civil Litigation
Fraud