WDS v WDT: Dispute over US$1.5 Million Gift to Deceased's Daughter
In the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, the plaintiff, WDS, as the sole executor and trustee of the deceased's will, sought a declaration against the defendant, WDT, the deceased's daughter, regarding a disputed US$1.5 million gift. WDT claimed the gift should be recognized as a debt of the deceased's estate. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, declaring that WDT does not have a valid claim against the estate for the US$1.5 million gift.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court (Family Division)1.2 Outcome
Declaration that WDT does not have a valid claim for US$1.5 million as a creditor against the Deceased’s estate granted. Plaintiff permitted to distribute the assets of the Deceased’s estate in accordance with the Deceased’s last Will and Testament without regard for WDT’s claim for the sum of US$1.5 million.
1.3 Case Type
Family
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The court considered whether a US$1.5 million gift to the deceased's daughter, WDT, was valid. The court ruled against WDT, finding no completed gift.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WDS | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Wah Hsien-Wen, Terence, Mok Zi Cong |
| WDT | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Tan Spring |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wah Hsien-Wen | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Terence | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Mok Zi Cong | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Tan Spring | Withers KhattarWong LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff is the sole executor and trustee of the last will and testament of the Deceased.
- The defendant alleges that a gift of US$1.5 million was made to her by the Deceased during the latter’s lifetime.
- The Deceased executed her will on 6 December 2013.
- The Deceased suffered a serious stroke in January 2015 and was bedridden.
- On 14 September 2016, the Deceased signed a letter which purported to instruct her “Bankers and Lawyers” to make a “further” cash gift of US$1.5 million to the Defendant.
- The Deceased passed away on 16 December 2016 in New York.
- No transfer of the sum of US$1.5 million to the Defendant ever took place.
5. Formal Citations
- WDS v WDT, Originating Summons No 9 of 2021, [2022] SGHCF 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| WDT's father passed away. | |
| WongPartnership arranged for the Deceased to see Dr. X for a mental capacity assessment. | |
| The Deceased executed her will, a Deed of Gift for a S$2.5 million cash gift to WDT, and a letter to her beneficiaries. | |
| The Deceased underwent another psychiatric evaluation by Dr. Y. | |
| The Deceased suffered a serious stroke. | |
| The Deceased was discharged from hospital. | |
| The Deceased was accepted into the care of a private senior care home in Toronto, Canada, together with WDT as a co-occupant. | |
| The Deceased confirmed the US$1.5 million Gift during a video call with WongPartnership. | |
| The Deceased signed a letter which purported to instruct her “Bankers and Lawyers” to “execute all necessary fund transfers” to make a “further” cash gift of US$1.5 million to WDT. | |
| The Deceased passed away in New York. | |
| The plaintiff’s representatives met WDT to introduce the plaintiff as the executor and trustee of the Deceased’s estate. | |
| B made a notarized statement stating that the Deceased had expressed her intention to make the US$1.5 million Gift to WDT in or around June 2016. | |
| The plaintiff received WongPartnership’s advice, and based on that advice, took the position that there was “no legal basis for the alleged gift to be recognised as a debt of the Estate”. | |
| The plaintiff informed WDT of its position and informed her that she would have to apply to court if she wanted the court to determine the legal position of the US$1.5 million Gift. | |
| Grant of probate. | |
| KhattarWong responded to WongPartnership on WDT’s behalf to put on record her disagreement with the plaintiff’s position. | |
| WongPartnership wrote on the plaintiff’s behalf to KhattarWong, stating that they had not “received a substantive response to [their] letters”. | |
| The plaintiff’s representatives met WDT to share with her Dentons’ advice. | |
| The plaintiff informed WDT that it would be proceeding to allocate the US$1.5 million to the respective sub-accounts under the estate according to the percentages stated in the Will. | |
| WDT replied requesting that they “hold off” from doing so while she consulted her new lawyer. | |
| The plaintiff informed WDT that it intended not to hold off any longer the allocation of the US$1.5 million. | |
| WDT replied through KhattarWong saying she had been led to believe that the plaintiff would be applying to court under rule 786 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 and “was expecting service of the application”. | |
| The present application was filed (HCF/OSP 9/2021). | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Gift
- Outcome: The court held that the gift was not valid.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2002] 1 WLR 2075
- 4 De GF & J 264
- LR 1 Ch App 25
- LR 16 Eq 340
- LR 18 Eq 11
- [1952] Ch 499
- [2019] 4 SLR 1289
- [2010] 2 BCLC 1
- [2001] 2 All ER 492
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of proprietary estoppel cannot apply in the present case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 1 WLR 776
- Donatio Mortis Causa
- Outcome: The court held that all three requirements for a valid donatio mortis causa were not made out in the present case.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 125
- [1999] 2 WLR 1308
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the defendant has a valid claim for the sum of US$1.5 million as a creditor against the Deceased’s estate
- Order that the plaintiff be permitted to distribute the assets of the Deceased’s estate in accordance with the Deceased’s last Will and Testament without regard for the defendant’s claim for the sum of US$1.5 million
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for recognition of debt against estate
10. Practice Areas
- Trusts and Estates Litigation
- Family Law Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pennington & anor v Waine & ors | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 2075 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer where the transaction was purely voluntary, but equity has tempered this principle via exceptions. |
| Milroy v Lord | N/A | Yes | 4 De GF & J 264 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer. |
| Jones v Lock | N/A | Yes | LR 1 Ch App 25 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer. |
| Warriner v Rogers | N/A | Yes | LR 16 Eq 340 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer. |
| Richards v Delbridge | N/A | Yes | LR 18 Eq 11 | N/A | Cited for the principle that equity will not assist a volunteer. |
| In re Rose; Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] Ch 499 | England and Wales | Cited for the exception to the maxim that equity will not assist a volunteer, where a settlor has done all that is necessary to transfer title to the donee but the transfer has not happened for reasons outside of his control. |
| BTB & anor v BTD | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 1289 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the exception established in Re Rose. |
| Kaye & ors v Zeitel & anor | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 BCLC 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Re. Rose cases actually required that the settlor should have “done all within [her] power to procure the transfer” of the property. |
| T Choithram International SA & ors v Pagarani & ors | Privy Council | Yes | [2001] 2 All ER 492 | British Virgin Islands | Cited for the remark that although equity will not aid a volunteer, it will not strive officiously to defeat a gift. |
| In re Buckton; Buckton v Buckton | N/A | Yes | [1907] 2 Ch 406 | N/A | Cited for the principle that costs of all parties should be regarded as necessarily incurred for the benefit of the estate where trustees ask the Court to construe the instrument of trust for their guidance. |
| Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong | N/A | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 125 | Singapore | Cited for the three requirements in law which must be fulfilled for a valid donatio mortis causa to arise. |
| Sen v Headley | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 WLR 1308 | N/A | Cited as an example of a house being transferred to the plaintiff by way of donatio causa mortis. |
| Thorner v Major | N/A | Yes | [2009] 1 WLR 776 | N/A | Cited for the three elements which must be established for proprietary estoppel to be made out. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rule 786 of the Family Justice Rules 2014 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Family Justice Rules 2014 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gift
- Estate
- Will
- Trust
- Beneficiary
- Donatio mortis causa
- Proprietary estoppel
- Equity
15.2 Keywords
- Gift
- Estate
- Will
- Trust
- Beneficiary
- Family Justice Courts
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Estates
- Family Law
- Gifts
17. Areas of Law
- Family Law
- Trust Law
- Equity
- Gifts