BLL v BLM: Issue Estoppel & Res Judicata in Mental Capacity Case

In BLL v BLM, the Singapore High Court addressed whether the defendants were prevented from contesting issues in Suit No 1085 of 2016 due to findings in a prior Court of Appeal decision, Re BKR [2015] 4 SLR 81, concerning BLL's mental capacity and the establishment of a trust. The court considered issue estoppel and the extended doctrine of res judicata, ultimately ruling that the defendants could relitigate the issue of undue influence. The claims include breach of fiduciary duties and undue influence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

The court held that issue estoppel and the extended doctrine of res judicata do not apply, allowing the defendants to relitigate the issue of undue influence.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on issue estoppel and res judicata, concerning undue influence in a mental capacity case. The court allowed relitigation.

1.7 Decision Date

9 September 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BLL	Plaintiff	Individual	Allowed relitigation of undue influence issue	Neutral	Marina Chin Li Yuen, Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan, Chan Yi Zhang, Pang Hui Min, Cha Meiyin
BLM	Defendant	Individual	Allowed to relitigate undue influence issue	Neutral	Poon Kin Mun Kelvin, Zhu Ming-Ren Wilson, David Isidore Tan
BLN	Defendant	Individual	Allowed to relitigate undue influence issue	Neutral	Poon Kin Mun Kelvin, Zhu Ming-Ren Wilson, David Isidore Tan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Marina Chin Li Yuen	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Alcina Lynn Chew Aiping	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Chan Yi Zhang	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Pang Hui Min	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Cha Meiyin	Tan Kok Quan Partnership LLP
Poon Kin Mun Kelvin	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Zhu Ming-Ren Wilson	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
David Isidore Tan	Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

BLL, an octogenarian, was declared unable to make decisions regarding her property and affairs in a previous action.
Deputies were appointed for BLL under the Mental Capacity Act.
BLL's deputies commenced Suit No 1085 of 2016 against BLL's youngest child, BLM, and BLM's husband, BLN.
The suit arose out of matters brought to light by the earlier suit regarding BLL's mental capacity.
The dispute in OSF 71/2011 centered on the circumstances before and after BLL created a trust dated 26 October 2010.
The Court of Appeal found that BLL lacked capacity because of a combination of mental impairment and undue influence from the defendants.
BLL is advancing claims against the defendants for breach of fiduciary duties and undue influence related to the trust.

5. Formal Citations

BLL v BLM and another, Suit No 1085 of 2016 (Summons No 4275 of 2018), [2019] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2011-02-18	Originating Summons (Family) No 71 of 2011 commenced
2010-10-26	Trust dated 26 October 2010 created
2010-11-08	BLL issued instructions to UBS bankers to transfer her assets to DBS
2010-12-15	BLL issued instructions to UBS bankers to transfer her assets to DBS
2010-11-28	BLL left Singapore for Hong Kong with BLM
2012-07-27	Deed of understanding entered between BLL, BLM and the trustee
2016-01-01	Suit No 1085 of 2016 filed
2018-09-14	Summons No 4275 of 2018 filed
2019-04-29	First hearing for the present action
2019-07-09	Hearing on 9 July 2019
2019-09-10	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel did not apply because there was no identity of subject matter between the prior proceedings and the current suit.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Identity of subject matter
  - Whether the issue was properly raised and argued
  - Whether the previous determination was fundamental
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 4 SLR 81
  - [2017] 2 SLR 12
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
  - [1967] 1 AC 853
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the extended doctrine of res judicata did not apply because there was no abuse of process in the present case.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Extended doctrine of res judicata
  - Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 4 SLR 81
  - (1843) 3 Hare 100
  - [2017] 2 SLR 760
Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that the Court of Appeal in Re BKR did find that the defendants unduly influenced BLL into deciding to set up the Trust, but allowed relitigation of the issue.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Influence was exercised
  - Exercise was undue
  - Exercise brought about the transaction
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 4 SLR 81
  - [2019] 1 SLR 349
Mental Capacity
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal in Re BKR found that BLL lacked capacity due to a combination of mental impairment and the circumstances in which she lived.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Ability to make decisions
  - Mental impairment
  - Undue influence
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 4 SLR 81

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Equitable Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Undue Influence
Abuse of Fiduciary Relationship

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Trust Litigation
Fiduciary Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re BKR	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 81	Singapore	Central to the judgment, addressing BLL's mental capacity and undue influence in setting up the trust.
AUR and another v AUT and others	Subordinate Courts	Yes	[2012] SGDC 489	Singapore	Cited for the First Instance Judge's decision regarding BLL's capacity and the circumstances surrounding the trust.
Re BKR	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 1257	Singapore	Cited for the High Court's reversal of the First Instance Judge's decision on BLL's capacity.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 12	Singapore	Cited for the principles of res judicata.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the public interest in finality in litigation.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to establish an issue estoppel.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	Unknown	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the elements of identity of subject matter in issue estoppel.
Petroships Investments Pte Ltd v Wealthplus Pte Ltd (in members’ voluntary liquidation) (Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) Ltd and another, interveners) and another matter	Unknown	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 687	Singapore	Cited for the principle that no estoppel will arise if the issue was not argued.
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 175	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there must be actual investigation of the point.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the court can refer to pleadings and evidence to ascertain whether the issue was raised and argued.
Lee Hiok Tng (in her personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng and another (executors and trustees of the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased) and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 771	Singapore	Cited as an example of how the doctrine of issue estoppel operates.
Blair v Curran	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1939) 62 CLR 464	Australia	Cited for the principle that nothing but what is legally indispensable to the conclusion is finally closed or precluded.
Thoday v Thoday	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1964] 2 WLR 371	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that issue estoppel arises only in respect of issues or ultimate facts.
BOM v BOK and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 1 SLR 349	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of actual undue influence.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 496	Singapore	Cited for the unsettled legal question in Singapore of whether but-for causation was necessary for breach of fiduciary duty.
Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong James	Unknown	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 221	Singapore	Cited for the principle that independent advice did not have an emancipating effect on the undue influence exercised by the defendants on BLL.
Pek Nam Kee and another v Peh Lam Kong and another	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 2 SLR(R) 750	Singapore	Cited for the principle that independent advice did not have an emancipating effect on the undue influence exercised by the defendants on BLL.
Niersmans v Pesticcio	England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division)	Yes	[2004] EWCA Civ 372	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that independent advice did not have an emancipating effect on the undue influence exercised by the defendants on BLL.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Tan Teck Khong and another (committee of the estate of Pang Jong Wan, mentally disordered) and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 694	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adviser who exercises due care might still not be able to detect undue influence.
Henderson v Henderson	High Court of Chancery	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100	England and Wales	Cited for the foundational authority of the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 760	Singapore	Cited for the purpose behind the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	House of Lords	Yes	[2001] 2 WLR 72	United Kingdom	Cited for the underlying public interest in ensuring finality in litigation.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police & Others	House of Lords	Yes	[1981] 3 WLR 906	United Kingdom	Cited for the competing considerations between the administration of justice being brought into disrepute and the unfairness to a party on the other.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek and others	Unknown	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 644	Singapore	Cited for the onus of proving an abuse of process lies on the party who alleges it.
Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132	Bermuda	Cited for the onus of proving an abuse of process lies on the party who alleges it.
Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) and others	Unknown	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 823	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court ought to disregard the prospects of success of the claim or defence that is sought to be relitigated or raised in the new proceedings.
Conlon and another v Simms	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 484	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court should be slower in preventing a party from continuing to deny serious charges of which another court has previously found him guilty.
OMV Petrom SA v Glencore International AG	High Court	Yes	[2014] EWHC 242	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court should be slower in preventing a party from continuing to deny serious charges of which another court has previously found him guilty.
Then Khek Koon and another v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other suits	Unknown	Yes	[2014] 1 SLR 245	Singapore	Cited as a comparison to the case at hand to show that the broad-based inquiry as to whether or not there is an abuse of process is an intensely fact-specific exercise.
Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109	Singapore	Cited for the prior proceedings in Then Khek Koon.
Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others	Unknown	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 117	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a risk of inconsistent findings weighs against allowing the issue to be relitigated.
Mallett v McMonagle, a minor by Huge Joseph McMonagle, his father and guardian ad litem, and Another	House of Lords	Yes	[1969] 2 WLR 767	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that anything that is more probable than not the court treats as certain.
Caylon v Michailaidis & Ors (Gilbraltar)	Privy Council	Yes	[2009] UKPC 34	Gibraltar	Cited for the test of whether there is an abuse of process has been referred as one that is “exacting”.
Inhenagwa v Onyeneho	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2017] EWHC 1971 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that issue estoppel arises only in respect of issues or ultimate facts.
Eastern European Engineering Ltd v Vijay Construction (Proprietary) Ltd	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2018] EWHC 2713 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that issue estoppel arises only in respect of issues or ultimate facts.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Mental Capacity Act (Cap 177A, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Issue Estoppel
Res Judicata
Undue Influence
Mental Capacity
Fiduciary Duty
Trust
Abuse of Process
Causation Issue

15.2 Keywords

Issue Estoppel
Res Judicata
Undue Influence
Mental Capacity
Fiduciary Duty
Trust
Singapore
High Court

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Mental Capacity Law
Trust Law
Fiduciary Law
Res Judicata
Issue Estoppel

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Res Judicata
Issue Estoppel
Mental Capacity Law
Trust Law
Fiduciary Law
Abuse of Process