Foo v Tuang: Family Probate Dispute Over Estate Administration

Foo Jee Boo and Foo Li Li sued Foo Jhee Tuang and TJH Law Corporation in the High Court of Singapore, concerning the estates of their late parents and brother. The plaintiffs alleged breaches of duty by the executor (Foo Jhee Tuang) and the law firm (TJH Law Corporation) in administering the estates. The court found Foo Jhee Tuang breached his duties by failing to provide an account of rent and forward statements of accounts, but dismissed other claims. The claims against TJH Law Corporation were dismissed. The court ordered Foo Jhee Tuang to provide an account of rent and allocated costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for First Defendant in part; Plaintiffs to pay Second Defendant's costs on an indemnity basis.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings dispute estate administration. Court addresses fiduciary duties, account of rent, and indemnity costs.

1.7 Decision Date

27 November 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Foo Jee Boo	Plaintiff	Individual	Claims dismissed in part	Partial
Foo Li Li	Plaintiff	Individual	Claims dismissed in part	Partial
Foo Jhee Tuang	Defendant	Individual	Claims dismissed in part	Partial	Nandwani Manoj Prakash of Gabriel Law Corporation Christine Ong of Gabriel Law Corporation
TJH Law Corporation	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Christopher Anand s/o Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Ganga d/o Avadiar of Advocatus Law LLP Foo Li Chuan Arlene of Advocatus Law LLP
Foo Jee Seng	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Nandwani Manoj Prakash	Gabriel Law Corporation
Christine Ong	Gabriel Law Corporation
Christopher Anand s/o Daniel	Advocatus Law LLP
Ganga d/o Avadiar	Advocatus Law LLP
Foo Li Chuan Arlene	Advocatus Law LLP

4. Facts

The suit arises from a dispute among siblings over the estates of their late parents and late brother.
The Late Father passed away on 5 May 1979, leaving a will.
The Late Mother passed away on 25 July 2005.
The Late Brother passed away on 19 July 2007.
The relationship between the siblings deteriorated due to disagreements on dealing with the Property.
The Court of Appeal ordered the 1st Defendant to sell the Property and distribute the proceeds.
The Plaintiffs alleged breaches of duty by the 1st and 2nd Defendants in administering the estates.

5. Formal Citations

Foo Jee Boo and anor v Foo Jhee Tuang and others, Suit No 764 of 2013, [2016] SGHC 260

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1975-05-08	Late Father's will dated
1979-05-05	Late Father passed away
1979-11-30	Probate obtained by Late Mother
2002-05-18	Late Mother's will dated
2005-07-25	Late Mother passed away
2007-07-19	Late Brother passed away
2010-01-11	Administration of Late Father’s estate granted to 1st Defendant
2010-04-16	URA letter issued
2010-09-02	Lawsuit filed
2011-03-21	1st Defendant declared sole surviving executor and trustee
2011-07-14	Lawsuit filed
2012-08-07	Appeal Allowed
2012-10-01	Grant of probate for Late Mother’s estate obtained
2012-11-12	Settlement reached
2012-12-14	Consent judgment recorded
2012-12-14	Grant of probate issued to 1st Plaintiff and 1st Defendant
2013-02-04	Enforcement proceedings
2013-02-08	Tender accepted
2013-02-23	Leave granted to withdraw summons
2013-04-19	Sale completed
2013-08-26	Lawsuit filed
2014-03-24	Payment into court ordered
2015-02-04	Application granted
2015-07-09	Applications dismissed
2016-03-07	Application granted
2016-03-23	Lawsuit filed
2016-04-20	Orders granted
2016-07-27	Lawsuit filed
2016-07-22	Trial began
2016-09-30	Written submissions filed
2016-11-28	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the 1st Defendant breached his fiduciary duties in failing to provide an account of rent and forward statements of accounts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to account
  - Improper distribution of assets
Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the 2nd Defendant did not owe fiduciary duties to the Plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Conflict of interest
  - Duty of care
Indemnity Costs
- Outcome: The court awarded indemnity costs to the 2nd Defendant, to be paid by the Plaintiffs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unreasonable conduct
  - Bad faith
Standing
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring claims in relation to the Late Mother’s estate in the present suit.
- Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

Account of Profits
Monetary Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Probate Litigation
Trusts
Estate Planning
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lee Yoke San and another v Tsong Sai Sai Cecilia and another	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 516	Singapore	Cited for the duties of executors, including calling in assets, paying expenses and debts, and fiduciary duty to beneficiaries.
Sharp v Lush	Chancery Division	Yes	[1879] 10 Ch D 468	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of testamentary and administration expenses.
Re Tankard, Tankard v Midland Bank Executor and Trustee Company, Limited	Chancery Division	Yes	[1942] 1 Ch 69	England and Wales	Cited for the duty of executors to pay debts of the deceased with due diligence.
Thompson v Dunn	Court of Appeal in Chancery	Yes	(1870) LR 5 Ch App 573	England and Wales	Cited for the duty of the executor to keep proper accounts of the administration of the estate.
A-G v Cocke	Chancery Division	Yes	[1988] Ch 414	England and Wales	Cited for the fiduciary relationship between an executor and the beneficiaries.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 339	Singapore	Cited for the duty of the executor to keep proper accounts of the administration of the estate.
Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and another (Foo Jee Seng, intervener)	High Court	No	[2015] SGHC 176	Singapore	Cited for the decision on amendments of the Statement of Claim and the status in which the parties were suing or being sued.
Law Society of Singapore v Ahmad Khalis bin Abdul Ghani	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 308	Singapore	Cited for the circumstances under which a retainer may be implied.
Anwar Patrick Adrian v Ng Chong & Hue LLC	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 761	Singapore	Cited for the crux of the matter is whether a contractual relationship “ought fairly and properly” be imputed to all parties.
Bristol & West Building Society v Mothew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] Ch 1	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of a fiduciary.
FHR European Ventures LLP v Cedar Capital Partners LLC	Supreme Court	Yes	[2014] UKSC 45	United Kingdom	Cited for the definition of a fiduciary.
AEL and others v Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC and another	High Court	No	[2014] 3 SLR 1231	Singapore	Cited for the argument that the 2nd Defendant owed them a duty of care under tort law as beneficiaries of the Late Father’s estate.
Wong Moy v Soo Ah Choy	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 27	Singapore	Cited for the Plaintiffs simply do not have the standing to bring an action against the 1st Defendant in relation to the Late Mother’s estate in the present suit.
CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 20	Singapore	Cited for the statement that costs on an indemnity basis are awarded as an exception rather than the norm.
Airtrust Hong Kong Ltd v PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHC 167	Singapore	Cited for the comprehensive examination of the case law on indemnity costs.
Goh Eileen née Chia and another v Goh Mei Ling Yvonne and another	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1356	Singapore	Cited for the case was not sufficiently exceptional to warrant an order of indemnity costs.
Ong Chai Hong (executrix of the estate of Chiang Chia Liang, deceased) v Chiang Shirley and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 1006	Singapore	Cited for the observations about the present suit.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Executor
Beneficiary
Probate
Estate
Fiduciary Duty
Indemnity Costs
Retainer
Standing

15.2 Keywords

Probate
Trust
Estate
Fiduciary Duty
Singapore
Family Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Estate Administration	90
Estate Law	90
Succession Law	80
Costs	70
Wills	70
Trust Law	60
Civil Procedure	50
Procedural Law	50
Professional Conduct Rules	40
Professional Ethics	40
Legal Profession Act	40
Duty of Candour	30

16. Subjects

Probate
Trusts
Civil Litigation
Family Law