Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie: Trespass, Conspiracy & Land Rights Dispute

In Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between siblings, Rosaline Goh (Plaintiff) and Nellie Goh, Goh Lian Chyu, Low Diau Ai, Goh Boon Hui Roney, Jenny Goh Boon Min, and Goh Boon Mei, Joanie (Defendants), concerning property rights at 61 Kovan Road. Rosaline claimed trespass by ouster and conspiracy to injure her, seeking damages for rent incurred. The court dismissed all claims, finding no breach of duty by Nellie, no trespass by Lian Chyu, and no conspiracy. The court awarded costs to the defendants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims dismissed in their entirety.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings dispute over property rights and residency. Court dismisses claims of trespass and conspiracy, awarding costs to the defendants.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Goh RosalinePlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Goh NellieDefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon
Goh Lian ChyuDefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon
Low Diau AiDefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon
Goh Boon Hui Roney (Wu Wenhui Roney)DefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon
Jenny Goh Boon MinDefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon
Goh Boon Mei, Joanie (Wu Wenmei, Joanie)DefendantIndividualJudgment in favor of DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Wong Zhen YangOptimus Chambers LLC
Choh Thian Chee IrvingOptimus Chambers LLC
Ng HweelonVeritas Law Corporation
Wang Qiuru LynnVeritas Law Corporation
Tai Kai Xuan MarcusAsia Law Corporation
A Shahiran Anis Bin Mohamed IbrahimAsia Law Corporation
Gopalakrishnan DinagaranPrestige Legal LLP
Tan Wei ChiehPrestige Legal LLP

4. Facts

  1. Rosaline, Nellie, and Lian Chyu each received a one-eleventh share in the family home as tenants in common.
  2. Mdm Low's will restricted the sale of the family home without unanimous consent of the beneficiaries.
  3. Rosaline refused to agree to a sale and insisted on returning to the family home to live there with her dogs.
  4. Lian Chyu expressed concerns about Rosaline's dogs, including their hygiene and potential danger.
  5. Rosaline rented 3 Leith Park and sought to have Lian Chyu and Djau Ai pay her rental expenses.
  6. An incident occurred on 17 June 2018 when Rosaline attempted to move into 61 Kovan with her dogs, leading to a confrontation.
  7. Rosaline had exclusive use of one room on the second floor of 61 Kovan for fourteen years.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie and others, Suit No 644 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 153

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mdm Low passed away, leaving the family home at 61 Kovan Road in equal shares to her children and one grandchild.
Nellie Goh was elected as the administrator of Mdm Low’s estate at a beneficiaries’ meeting.
Court ordered that Rosaline be given keys to all doors at 61 Kovan leading to her bedroom and that she should pay her proportionate share of property tax, utilities and other outgoings.
Rosaline, along with her sisters Shirley and Judy, visited 61 Kovan to inform Lian Chyu and Djau Ai that she intended to move in with her dogs.
Rosaline followed up with a solicitors’ letter.
Lian Chyu replied, stating that Rosaline was welcome to stay at 61 Kovan but her dogs were not allowed.
Rosaline’s solicitors gave notice that she would renew her lease and demanded that Lian Chyu and Djau Ai pay the rental.
Rosaline executed the 2017 Tenancy Agreement.
Rosaline emailed Lian Chyu to say she would visit him on 7 June 2018.
Rosaline, Shirley, and Judy visited 61 Kovan.
The three sisters came back to prepare for Rosaline’s moving in on 17 June 2018.
Rosaline returned with her two dogs, leading to a confrontation.
Rosaline executed an agreement for a fresh lease at 3 Leith Park.
Rosaline successfully moved into 61 Kovan with her dogs.
Statement of Claim dated.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trespass by Ouster
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no trespass by ouster, as Lian Chyu's conduct did not deny Rosaline's right to reside at 61 Kovan.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Constructive Ouster
      • Denial of Co-owner Rights
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] QSC 203
      • [2006] 1 SLR(R) 229
  2. Conspiracy to Injure
    • Outcome: The court found no conspiracy to injure Rosaline, as there was no intention to injure her and the alleged unlawful act did not meet the required standard.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unlawful Means
      • Intention to Injure
  3. Duty of Administrator
    • Outcome: The court held that Nellie, as administrator, did not owe Rosaline a duty to ensure she could exercise her right of residence at 61 Kovan with her dogs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Distribution of Estate
      • Beneficiary Rights
  4. Contractual Licence
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no room nor need to introduce the concept of a contractual licence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] NICh 20

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Rent under Tenancy Agreements

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trespass
  • Conspiracy to Injure
  • Breach of Contractual Licence

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453SingaporeCited for declining to order a sale of 61 Kovan because four of the children including Rosaline objected to the sale, and Mdm Low’s will prohibited sale in the absence of unanimous consent of the eleven beneficiaries.
Goh Rosaline v Goh Lian Chyu and anotherHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 133SingaporeCited for holding that Rosaline, as a lawful occupant, is entitled to such pets as Lian Chyu and Djau Ai are as the proper authorities may allow.
The Official Solicitor as Controller AD Interim for NS (A Patient) v MSNorthern Ireland Chancery CourtYes[2018] NICh 20Northern IrelandCited for the analysis that the grant by will of a right of residence in real property owned by the deceased, may create, upon probate of the will, a licence in favour of the beneficiary.
Paroz & ors v ParozQueensland Supreme CourtYes[2010] QSC 203QueenslandCited for the description of constructive ouster as conduct by the party in occupation which manifests a denial of the rights of the other co-owners.
Tan Chwee Chye and others v P V R M Kulandayan ChettiarCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 229SingaporeCited for the approach taken to constructive ouster, where the co-owner in possession was seeking to argue that it had ousted the deceased co-owner so as to prove a claim in adverse possession.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Tenants in Common
  • Ouster
  • Constructive Ouster
  • Contractual Licence
  • Conspiracy
  • Right of Residence
  • Administrator
  • Beneficiary

15.2 Keywords

  • Trespass
  • Conspiracy
  • Land Rights
  • Property Dispute
  • Singapore
  • Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trespass80
Property Law75
Tenancy in Common75
Torts70
Interest in land70
Conspiracy65
Civil Litigation50
Civil Practice40
Contracts30

16. Subjects

  • Property Law
  • Tort Law
  • Succession Law