Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen: Setting Aside Inter Vivos Gift for Mistake in Land Transfer
In Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the transfer of a landed property. The plaintiff, Ho Dat Khoon, sought to set aside the transfer of the property to the second defendant, Wong Cai Juan, arguing that she was mistaken about the nature of the transfer. The court, presided over by Aedit Abdullah J, ruled in favor of the plaintiff, setting aside the transfer on the grounds of mistake and ordering rectification of the land register. The court disallowed the conspiracy claim. The court allowed the claim for $13,411 against the first defendant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Transfer set aside for mistake; rectification of land-register ordered.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court sets aside property transfer due to plaintiff's mistaken belief it was a testamentary gift, not an inter vivos gift. Conspiracy claim dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Dat Khoon | Plaintiff | Individual | Transfer set aside for mistake; rectification of land-register ordered. | Won | Ranvir Kumar Singh, Ong Eng Tuan Eben |
| Chan Wai Leen, as the administratrix of the estate of Wong Ching Fong, deceased, and in her personal capacity | Defendant | Individual | Transfer set aside; counterclaim dismissed. | Lost | Ng Hui Min, Mok Zi Cong |
| Wong Cai Juan | Defendant | Individual | Transfer set aside; counterclaim dismissed. | Lost | Ng Hui Min, Mok Zi Cong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ranvir Kumar Singh | UniLegal LLC |
| Ong Eng Tuan Eben | Loh Eben Ong LLP |
| Ng Hui Min | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Mok Zi Cong | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff transferred the title of the property to the second defendant by way of a purported gift.
- The plaintiff argued that she did not intend to make an inter vivos gift.
- The defendants argued that the plaintiff intended to make an inter vivos gift.
- The plaintiff executed a will on the same day as the transfer, bequeathing the property to the second defendant upon her death.
- The court found that the plaintiff was under a mistaken belief as to the legal effect of the transfer.
- The property was the plaintiff's only major asset, valued between $7.5m and $7.8m.
- The plaintiff claimed that the first defendant wrongfully withdrew $13,411.41 from a joint savings account.
5. Formal Citations
- Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen (in her personal capacity and as administratrix of the estate of Wong Ching Fong, deceased) and another, Suit No 1095 of 2020, [2023] SGHC 326
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Property registered in the plaintiff’s name. | |
| Mr. Alan Wong passed away. | |
| Plaintiff signed an instrument of transfer in favor of the second defendant. | |
| Plaintiff executed a will. | |
| Transfer registered in the second defendant’s name. | |
| Mr. Ho Chiuen Sheey and Ms. Nicola Reece Sheffield Ho Chuien Yheeg became the attorneys of the plaintiff. | |
| Suit commenced against the defendants. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Judgment issued. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Mistake
- Outcome: The court held that the transfer should be set aside as the plaintiff was operating under a mistake when she executed the transfer.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Mistaken belief as to the legal effect of the transfer
- Intention to make a testamentary gift versus an inter vivos gift
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 349
- [2013] 2 AC 108
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claims for both unlawful and lawful means conspiracy were not made out and dismissed them.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unlawful means conspiracy
- Lawful means conspiracy
- Intention to cause damage or injury
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 1 SLR 860
- [2015] 2 SLR 686
- [2023] SGHC 243
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claim under unjust enrichment was misconceived as it was premised on the availability of proprietary remedies, which are not recognized in Singapore law for unjust enrichment claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Proprietary remedies in unjust enrichment
- Personal claim versus proprietary claim
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 136
- [2013] 4 SLR 308
- [1991] 2 AC 548
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendants' counterclaim based on proprietary estoppel, finding that there was no representation by the plaintiff and insufficient evidence of detrimental reliance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Representation or assurance
- Reliance
- Detriment
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 1422
- [2018] 2 SLR 110
- Rectification of Land Register
- Outcome: The court ordered the rectification of the land register pursuant to ss 160(1)(b) and 160(2) of the Land Titles Act, finding that the registration was obtained through mistake and the second defendant was privy to the mistake.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Registration obtained through mistake
- Proprietor's involvement in the mistake
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of transfer
- Damages
- Rectification of land-register
- Declaration of trust
- Restitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Setting aside of transfer
- Conspiracy
- Unjust enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Land Transfer
- Conspiracy
- Unjust Enrichment
- Costs
- Proprietary Estoppel
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the test to set aside voluntary dispositions on the ground of mistake. |
| Pitt v Holt | N/A | Yes | [2013] 2 AC 108 | N/A | Cited for principles regarding causative mistake and gravity of mistake in setting aside voluntary dispositions. |
| EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to establish a claim for unlawful means conspiracy. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to establish a claim for unlawful means conspiracy. |
| Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd v Far East Mining Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 243 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to establish a claim for lawful means conspiracy. |
| Kok Zhen Yen and another v Beth Candice Wu | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 126 | Singapore | Cited for principles regarding the granting of declarations by the court. |
| Ikebife Ibeneweka v Peter Egbuna | N/A | Yes | [1964] 1 WLR 219 | N/A | Cited for principles regarding the granting of declarations by the court. |
| Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 136 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between proprietary and personal claims in unjust enrichment. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between proprietary and personal claims in unjust enrichment. |
| Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | N/A | Cited for the distinction between proprietary and personal claims in unjust enrichment. |
| Kerr v Baranow | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 SCR 269 | Canada | Cited for the position that proprietary remedies are available to claims in unjust enrichment. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | N/A | Cited for the rejection of the view that resulting trust should play a wider role in unjust enrichment claims. |
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of proprietary estoppel. |
| Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that silence may amount to a representation in proprietary estoppel claims. |
| CCM Industrial Pte Ltd v Uniquetech Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defendants had made the plaintiff an Offer to Settle (“OTS”), and that the judgment entered in her favour was not more favourable than the OTS. |
| Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2022] 5 SLR 525 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a “Type I Order”, which deprives the successful party of the right to recover all or part of his costs from the unsuccessful party, would be justified under O 59 r 6A of the ROC 2014 when (a) the successful party failed to establish a discrete claim or issue which he raised in the litigation; and (b) he thereby unnecessarily or unreasonably protracted or added to the costs or complexity of the litigation. |
| Lock Han Chng Jonathan (Jonathan Luo Hancheng) v Goh Jessiline | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the date on which the work underlying the claim for reasonable disbursements was actually supplied was irrelevant. What mattered for the purposes of GST was the date on which the costs order was made. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 22A r 9(4)(a) |
| Supreme Court Practice Directions 2013 Appendix G |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 59 r 6A |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed) s 7(1) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act 1993 (2020 Rev Ed) s 160 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed), paragraph 14 of the First Schedule | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Inter vivos gift
- Testamentary gift
- Instrument of transfer
- Mistake
- Rectification
- Land-register
- Unjust enrichment
- Proprietary estoppel
- Conspiracy
15.2 Keywords
- Land transfer
- Mistake
- Inter vivos gift
- Testamentary gift
- Rectification
- Singapore
- Property
- Equity
- Trust
16. Subjects
- Land Law
- Equity
- Trusts
- Gifts
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Gifts
- Land Law
- Tort Law
- Restitution
- Civil Procedure
- Equity