Ong Teck Soon v Ong Teck Seng: Conversion, Unjust Enrichment & Limitation
Ong Teck Soon, executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, brought a claim in the High Court of Singapore against Ong Teck Seng for conversion and unjust enrichment, alleging unauthorized withdrawals from the Testator's OCBC bank account. The second defendant, Ong Hwe Leng, was added as a necessary party. The court found that Ong Teck Seng failed to prove the withdrawals were authorized and that the claim was not time-barred, ruling in favor of Ong Teck Soon and ordering restitution and delivery of a Rolex watch.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Claim by Ong Teck Soon against Ong Teck Seng for unauthorized withdrawals from the Testator’s account. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Ong Teck Seng | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ong Hwe Leng | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew John Hanam | Andrew LLC |
| Kasi Ramalingam | Raj Kumar & Rama |
4. Facts
- The Testator made specific provisions in his will for the distribution of his estate to his wife and children.
- The first defendant withdrew $500,000 and $613,000 from the Testator's OCBC account using pre-signed cheques.
- The first defendant claimed the Testator instructed him to withdraw the money as a gift and for the upkeep of the family property.
- The plaintiff claimed the withdrawals were unauthorized and in breach of trust.
- The plaintiff discovered the withdrawals in May 2011 and learned they were unauthorized in October 2014.
- The first defendant did not inform his family members of the Testator's instructions until after the commencement of the proceedings.
- The funds from the trust cheque were never used for their intended purposes.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased)vOng Teck Seng and another, Suit No 651 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 95
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Will dated | |
| Testator allegedly instructed first defendant to issue cheques | |
| Testator passed away | |
| Cheques drawn on Testator's OCBC account | |
| Wake held for Testator | |
| Sum of $615,000 withdrawn from Mdm Tan’s joint account | |
| Plaintiff discovered withdrawals | |
| Mdm Tan passed away | |
| Plaintiff obtained images of the two cheques | |
| Writ filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Conversion
- Outcome: The court found that the first defendant converted the two cheques.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorized dealing with chattel
- Denial of title
- Related Cases:
- [2013] 4 SLR 308
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
- [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471
- [1914] 3 KB 356
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court did not rule on unjust enrichment as the claim in conversion was established.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 540
- [2013] 3 SLR 801
- [2016] SGHC 274
- Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court found that the claim was not time-barred due to fraudulent concealment by the first defendant.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Fraudulent concealment
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 716
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the burden of proof was on the first defendant to prove that the withdrawals were authorized.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855
- [2016] 1 SLR 1471
- Pre-Judgment Interest
- Outcome: The court awarded pre-judgment interest at the actual rates earned on the fixed and/or time deposits.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 3 SLR 1308
8. Remedies Sought
- Restitution
- Delivery up of property
9. Cause of Actions
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that restitution is a response to an event and that different causes of action may give rise to the same remedy of restitution. |
| Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of conversion and the requirement of possession or right to immediate possession of the chattel. |
| The Cherry | Unknown | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 471 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the requirement of possession or right to immediate possession of the chattel for a claim in conversion. |
| Morison v London County and Westminster Bank, Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1914] 3 KB 356 | England | Cited for the principle that the immediate right of possession to a cheque remains with the drawer until it is issued or delivered to an authorized payee. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to maintain a claim in unjust enrichment. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no freestanding claim in unjust enrichment without a particular recognized unjust factor or event. |
| AAHG, LLC v Hong Hin Kay Albert | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 274 | Singapore | Cited for the application of lack of consent as an unjust factor in establishing a claim for unjust enrichment. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the legal burden of proof and the distinction between legal and evidential burdens. |
| SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1471 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the legal burden of proof lies on the party who asserts the existence of a fact and for the concept of 'confession and avoidance'. |
| Chua Teck Chew Robert v Goh Eng Wah | Unknown | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 716 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of fraudulent concealment under s 29(1) of the Limitation Act. |
| Grains and Industrial Products Trading Pte Ltd v Bank of India and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1308 | Singapore | Cited for the principles governing the award of pre-judgment interest. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited as a general rule, damages should commence from the date of accrual of loss. |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services | Unknown | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1317 | Singapore | Cited for the compensation principle, but found to have no bearing on the interest award in the present case. |
| Ng Swee Hua v Auston International Group Ltd and another | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited by the plaintiff, but found not to assist his case regarding the applicable rate of interest to pre-writ interest awards. |
| Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin Christina and another | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 326 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the rule in Browne v Dunn is not rigid. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Testator
- Executor
- Will
- Pre-signed cheques
- Gift cheque
- Trust cheque
- Conversion
- Unjust enrichment
- Limitation Act
- Fraudulent concealment
- Restitution
- Rolex watches
15.2 Keywords
- Conversion
- Unjust enrichment
- Limitation
- Estate
- Will
- Cheques
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Conversion | 80 |
| Torts | 75 |
| Restitution | 70 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 70 |
| Limitation | 65 |
| Particular causes of action | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Interest | 45 |
| Trust Law | 30 |
| Chancery and Equity | 30 |
| Succession Law | 25 |
| Property Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Trusts
- Estate Law
- Civil Procedure