Chen Xiaoqi v Chen Fangqi: Sale of Property & Estate Administration Dispute

Chen Xiaoqi and Chen Fangying filed an application against Chen Fangqi and Chen Changfeng in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, concerning the estate of their deceased father, Tan Tuck Kow. The claimants sought orders for the sale of properties, an account of rental income, and related matters. The defendants counterclaimed for enforcement of an agreement, remuneration as administrator, and damages for breach of fiduciary duties. Goh Yihan JC ordered the sale of the properties, an account of rental income, and dismissed the counterclaims. The court ordered the parties to jointly appoint a solicitor to conduct the valuation and sale of the properties.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders granted for the sale of properties and an account of rental income. Counterclaims dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings dispute over the sale of properties and administration of their deceased father's estate. The court ordered the sale of the properties.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chen XiaoqiClaimantIndividualOrders granted in partPartial
Chen FangyingClaimantIndividualOrders granted in partPartial
Chen FangqiDefendantIndividualCounterclaims dismissedLost
Chen ChangfengDefendantIndividualCounterclaims dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kok Jia An AlwynRobert Wang & Woo LLP
Teoh Seok Pin AudreyRobert Wang & Woo LLP
Nicholas Yong Yoong HanFortis Law Corporation
Ho Chee JiaFortis Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Claimants and defendants are siblings and beneficiaries of their father's estate.
  2. The estate includes two HDB shophouses and a dental clinic.
  3. Xiaoqi and Fangqi were appointed as joint administrators of the estate.
  4. The relationship between the siblings deteriorated, leading to disputes over the estate's administration.
  5. Claimants sought the sale of the properties and an account of rental income.
  6. Defendants counterclaimed for enforcement of an agreement and remuneration as administrator.
  7. The parties' father and mother divorced sometime in the early 2010s.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chen Xiaoqi and another v Chen Fangqi and another, Originating Application No 696 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 107

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Tan Tuck Kow passed away.
Lakeside Dentist converted to Lakeside Dentist Pte Ltd.
Claimants sent a letter of demand to the defendants.
Letters of Administration granted to Xiaoqi and Fangqi.
Ownership of 345 Jurong East Street 31 #01-19 devolved to Xiaoqi and Fangqi.
Ownership of 342 Jurong East Street 31 #01-05 devolved to Xiaoqi and Fangqi.
Claimants' solicitor's letter regarding agreement to dispose of properties.
Affidavit of Chen Fangqi and Chen Changfeng filed.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Sale of Property
    • Outcome: Court ordered the sale of the properties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Partition
      • Expediency of sale
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: Court found no binding agreement between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Offer and acceptance
      • Certainty of terms
  3. Administrator's Duty to Account
    • Outcome: Court ordered Fangqi to provide an account of the rental income.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proper accounts
      • Rental income
      • Dividends
  4. Administrator's Remuneration
    • Outcome: Court found Fangqi entitled to remuneration but deferred the determination of the amount.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Commission
      • Reasonableness
  5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: Court found no breach of fiduciary duty by Xiaoqi.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of involvement
      • Loss of opportunity

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Sale of Properties
  2. Account of Rental Income
  3. Specific Performance
  4. Monetary Damages
  5. Declaration of Entitlement to Remuneration

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Administration of Estate

10. Practice Areas

  • Estate Administration
  • Trusts
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gay Choong Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332SingaporeCited for the principle that general principles of contract law apply to the law of compromise or settlement.
Foley v Classique Coaches LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1934] 2 KB 1England and WalesCited for the principle that unless all material terms of a contract are agreed, there is no binding agreement.
The Ka Wah Bank Ltd v Nadinusa Sdn Bhd & AnorMalaysian Federal CourtYes[1998] 2 MLJ 350MalaysiaCited for the principle that a settlement agreement can be entered into through an exchange of correspondence.
Cheverny Consulting Ltd v Whitehead Mann LtdN/AYes[2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 124N/ACited for the principle that where solicitors are involved and formal written agreements are to be produced, the normal inference is that the parties are not bound unless and until both sign the agreement.
The “Rainbow Spring”Court of AppealYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 362SingaporeCited for the principle that the important question is whether the parties, by their words and conduct, have made it objectively clear that they intend to be bound despite the unsettled terms.
The “Luna” and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] 2 SLR 1054SingaporeCited for the principle that it is permissible to consider evidence of subsequent conduct for contract formation.
Higgins, Danial Patrick v Mulacek, Philippe Emanuel and others and another suitN/AYes[2016] 5 SLR 848SingaporeCited for the principle that taking preparatory steps, on the basis of a hope and expectation there would be an agreement in the future, cannot form the basis of a contract where the negotiations between the parties have not crystallised into a contractually-binding agreement.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the factors to consider when deciding whether it is necessary or expedient for a sale to be ordered in lieu of partition.
Tan Chor Hong v Ng Cheng HockHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 1298SingaporeCited for the considerations in determining whether one of the co-owners should have sole conduct of the sale.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not countenance backdoor attempts to circumvent a stricter standard that is imposed by law by simply recharacterising the application.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2016] 4 SLR 351SingaporeCited for the principle that the court does not countenance backdoor attempts to circumvent a stricter standard that is imposed by law by simply recharacterising the application.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 339SingaporeCited for ordering the parties to jointly appoint a solicitor to conduct the valuation and sale of the properties.
Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2022] SGCA(I) 8SingaporeCited for elaborating on the essential duty of a trustee to maintain and render a proper and accurate account of trust assets.
Chiang Shirley v Chiang Dong PhengHigh CourtYes[2015] 3 SLR 770SingaporeCited for the principle that the right to an account is not absolute but is subject to limitations and exceptions.
Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) v Moti Harkishindas BhojawaniHigh CourtYes[2019] 3 SLR 356SingaporeCited for the principle that the court retained a residual discretion to decline to make an order for an account.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 339SingaporeCited for the principle that beneficiaries are entitled, within proper bounds, to be furnished with an account of the funds in the trust.
Lalwani Shalini Gobind and another v Lalwani Ashok BherumalHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 90SingaporeCited for the principle that the trustee must by the accounting process give ‘proper, complete, and accurate justification and documentation for his actions as a trustee,’ as the taking of an account is a means to hold the trustee accountable for his stewardship of trust property.
G Raman, Probate and Administration in Singapore and MalaysiaN/AYes[2018]N/ACited for the principle that the personal representative’s duty at the end of the administration of the estate would be to render proper accounts.
Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 260SingaporeCited to distinguish the proposition that there is no need to provide supporting evidence in the taking of an account on the common basis.
Exsus Travel Limited v TurnerEnglish Court of AppealYes[2014] EWCA Civ 1331England and WalesCited for the principle that how the burden is discharged will vary from case to case.
Lau Koon Ying Matthew as the Executor of the estate of Lau Yiu Wing, deceased v Lau Tark Wing and anotherHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2019] HKCU 1595Hong KongCited for the principle that where there are serious doubts as to the general accuracy and credibility of the account, as would be the case where a significant part of the account is unsupported, a court would not find that the trustee’s obligation to account has been discharged.
Re Chew Joo Chiat, DeceasedN/AYes[1933] MLJ 187N/ACited for the true test for the calculation of what remuneration an executor or administrator ought to get is whether or not the executor or administrator has done his duty according to law.
Shiraz Abidally Husain and another (executors of the estate of Abidally Abdul Husain, deceased) v Husain Safdar Abidally and othersN/AYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 11SingaporeCited for the true test for the calculation of what remuneration an executor or administrator ought to get is whether or not the executor or administrator has done his duty according to law.
UJT v UJR and another matterHigh CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 931SingaporeCited for the factors that the court may consider when exercising its discretion to allow the administrator a commission.
Suresh Agarwal v Naseer Ahmad AkhtarCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 672SingaporeCited for the principle that O 6 r 14 of the Rules of Court 2021 does not need any nexus in law or in fact between the claim in the originating application and the counterclaim between the parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Probate and Administration Act 1934Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Estate
  • Letters of Administration
  • Beneficiaries
  • Properties
  • Rental Income
  • Dividends
  • Administrators
  • Settlement Agreement
  • Fiduciary Duties
  • Remuneration
  • Account

15.2 Keywords

  • estate
  • administration
  • property
  • sale
  • rental income
  • trust
  • beneficiaries
  • agreement
  • fiduciary duty
  • remuneration

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Estate Administration95
Succession Law70
Trust Law60
Property Law30
Contract Law25

16. Subjects

  • Probate
  • Estate Administration
  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Contract Law