Tan Kim Heng v Tan Kim Li: Dispute over Validity of Wills and Property Disposition

In Tan Kim Heng v Tan Kim Li, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute between Tan Kim Heng (Plaintiff) and Tan Kim Li (Defendant) regarding the validity of two wills of their mother, Mdm Tan Whay Eng, and the disposition of a property. The Plaintiff challenged the 2015 will, while the Defendant challenged the 2008 will. The Plaintiff also claimed the property did not form part of the estate. Chua Lee Ming J. found both wills valid, with the 2015 will prevailing, and that the property remained part of the estate. The Plaintiff's claim was dismissed, the Defendant's counterclaim was allowed, and costs were awarded to the Defendant, to be indemnified by the estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed; counterclaim allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving a dispute over the validity of two wills and the disposition of property. The court found both wills valid, with the later will prevailing, and ruled the property remained part of the estate.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan Kim HengPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLostEugene Singarajah Thuraisingam, Suang Wijaya
Tan Kim LiDefendantIndividualCounterclaim AllowedWonLim Seng Siew, Susan Tay Ting Lan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eugene Singarajah ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Lim Seng SiewOTP Law Corporation
Susan Tay Ting LanOTP Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Tan passed away on 26 February 2015, leaving behind two wills.
  2. The 2008 Will named the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary.
  3. The 2015 Will named all eight children as beneficiaries in equal shares.
  4. The plaintiff challenged the validity of the 2015 Will.
  5. The defendant challenged the validity of the 2008 Will.
  6. The plaintiff claimed Mdm Tan had disposed of her equitable interest in the Property to herself and the plaintiff as joint tenants.
  7. The Property was registered in the names of Mdm Tan and the plaintiff as joint tenants in their capacities as personal representatives of TYT’s estate.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Kim Heng v Tan Kim Li, Suit No 254 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 177

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tan Kow Quee died intestate
Letters of administration granted to Tan Yee Tam and Tan Liang Quee
Tan Liang Quee passed away
Tan Yee Tam made a will
Tan Yee Tam passed away
Plaintiff appointed as co-administrator of Tan Kow Quee’s estate
Originating Summons No 995 of 2006 commenced
OS 995/2006 dismissed by the High Court
High Court’s decision upheld by the Court of Appeal in Civil Appeal No 25 of 2007
Originating Summons No 127 of 2008 commenced
Netto wrote to the Registrar of Land Titles
Leave obtained to amend OS 127/2008
Registrar declined to give confirmation
Netto advised Mdm Tan and the plaintiff to make a will
Mdm Tan executed the 2008 Will
Probate granted to Mdm Tan and the plaintiff
Order granted in OS 127/2008 vesting the Property in TYT’s estate
Transmission Application lodged
Property registered in the names of Mdm Tan and the plaintiff as joint tenants
Netto asked Mdm Tan and the plaintiff for the title deeds
Mdm Tan executed the 2015 Will
Mdm Tan admitted to Tan Tock Seng Hospital
Mdm Tan discharged from the Hospital
Mdm Tan passed away
Plaintiff filed the present action
Hearing began
Hearing concluded
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Wills
    • Outcome: The court found both the 2008 and 2015 wills to be valid, with the 2015 will prevailing as it revoked the 2008 will.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Disposition of Equitable Interest
    • Outcome: The court found that Mdm Tan did not dispose of her equitable interest in the Property, and therefore the Property remained a part of her estate.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Part Performance
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of part performance did not apply because the acts relied upon were not referable to the alleged disposition.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 2 SLR 76
      • [2004] 4 SLR(R) 258

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the 2015 Will was invalid
  2. Declaration that the 2008 Will was valid
  3. Declaration that the Property did not form part of Mdm Tan’s estate

9. Cause of Actions

  • Challenge to validity of will
  • Claim for disposition of equitable interest

10. Practice Areas

  • Estate Litigation
  • Probate
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee (alias Tan Kow Kwee)High CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 417SingaporeCited regarding the dismissal of OS 995/2006 and the determination that the Property formed part of TYT's estate.
Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim and othersN/AYes[2010] 2 SLR 76SingaporeCited for the pragmatic approach in applying the doctrine of part performance to prevent a statute from being used as an instrument of fraud.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte LtdN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that equity will only intervene to thwart unconscionable behaviour in the context of part performance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Will
  • Equitable interest
  • Disposition
  • Joint tenants
  • Part performance
  • Testamentary capacity
  • Undue influence
  • Estate
  • Beneficiary
  • Survivorship

15.2 Keywords

  • Will
  • Property
  • Equity
  • Singapore
  • Disposition
  • Estate
  • Probate
  • Trust

16. Subjects

  • Wills
  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Equity

17. Areas of Law

  • Equity
  • Wills and Probate
  • Trust Law
  • Land Law