Tan Boon Teck Donald v Lum Shih Kai: Construction of Will & Court's Inherent Jurisdiction to Vary Trust
In Tan Boon Teck Donald v Lum Shih Kai, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Donald Tan Boon Teck, the claimant and sole executor/trustee of his late sister's estate, to sell a condominium despite a clause in her will prohibiting such sale within three years of her death. The defendant, Lum Shih Kai, was the prospective buyer. The court, presided over by Christopher Tan JC, dismissed the application, holding that neither Section 4 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act nor the court's inherent powers or Section 56(1) of the Trustees Act justified overriding the express terms of the will. The decision was made on 8 December 2023.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Probate
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning an application to sell property despite a restriction in the will. The court dismissed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Donald Tan Boon Teck | Claimant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lum Shih Kai | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher Tan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Testatrix passed away on 22 January 2023.
- The Will, dated 21 July 2000, named the Claimant as the sole executor and trustee.
- Clause 8 of the Will prohibited the sale of the Property within three years of the Testatrix’s death.
- The estate did not possess any cash to service the outstanding mortgage or debt owed to the MC.
- The Claimant granted the Defendant an option to purchase the Property for $4.45m.
- The Defendant exercised the OTP on 4 August 2023.
- UOB obtained an order for vacant possession of the property in 2017.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Boon Teck Donald v Lum Shih Kai, Originating Application No 956 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 347
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Will dated | |
| UOB obtained order for delivery of vacant possession of the Property | |
| Testatrix passed away | |
| Outstanding maintenance fees and sinking fund payments stood at $48,413.18 | |
| Grant of probate issued to the Claimant | |
| OTP exercised by the Defendant | |
| Originating Application filed | |
| Hearing of the Application | |
| Hearing date | |
| Sale scheduled for completion | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Construction of Will
- Outcome: The court construed the will as containing a valid restriction on the sale of the property within three years of the testatrix's death.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of testamentary restrictions
- Validity of sale prohibition
- Court's Inherent Jurisdiction to Vary Trust
- Outcome: The court held that the circumstances did not justify the exercise of its inherent powers to override the express terms of the will.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Exercise of inherent powers
- Overriding testamentary restrictions
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to complete the sale of the condominium apartment
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Order to Complete Sale of Property
10. Practice Areas
- Probate
- Trusts
- Estate Planning
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Tippett’s and Newbould’s Contract | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1887) 37 Ch D 444 | United Kingdom | Cited to demonstrate that Section 4 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act is inapplicable when the issue concerns the construction of a testamentary instrument rather than the contract of sale itself. |
| Tan Han Yong v Kwangtung Provincial Bank | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 255 | Singapore | Cited Tippett’s case. |
| In re Hughes and Ashley’s Contract | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1900] 2 Ch 595 | United Kingdom | Cited to explain the scope and purpose of s 4 of the CLPA, emphasizing its focus on questions arising directly from the contract of sale. |
| Rajabali Jumabhoy and others v Ameerali R Jumabhoy and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 434 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court can exercise its inherent jurisdiction to vary the terms of a trust in unforeseen emergencies and that the court's inherent powers cannot be exercised simply because the act or transaction concerned will be beneficial to the trust. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 258 | Singapore | Cited to clarify that the term 'inherent jurisdiction' may be more precisely termed 'inherent powers' when the subject concerned not so much the court’s jurisdiction or authority to hear a matter but rather its capacity to grant certain orders or reliefs and that the court’s inherent powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. |
| Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | High Court of Singapore | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 353 | Singapore | Cited in Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario for the principle that the court’s inherent powers should only be invoked in exceptional circumstances. |
| 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 principle that a mortgagee exercising the power of sale is subject to a duty to properly advertise the sale and take reasonable care to obtain the true market value of the Property at the time of sale. |
| In re Downshire Settled Estates; In re Chapman’s Settlement Trusts; In re Blackwell’s Settlement Trusts | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1953] Ch 218 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the court will give effect to the intentions of a settlor as expressed in the trust instrument and has not arrogated to itself any overriding power to disregard or rewrite the trusts. |
| Leo Teng Choy v Leo Teng Kit and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 636 | Singapore | Cited by the Defendant to argue that the court could countermand the three-year moratorium imposed by cl 8(i) of the Will if this would further the Testatrix’s overriding intention. Distinguished by the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 | Singapore |
| Trustees Act 1967 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Testatrix
- Will
- Trustee
- Executor
- Originating Application
- Inherent Jurisdiction
- Moratorium
- En bloc sale
- Mortgagee
- Power of sale
15.2 Keywords
- Trust
- Will
- Property
- Sale
- Restriction
- Executor
- Trustee
- Court Order
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Succession Law | 80 |
| Trust Law | 75 |
| Wills | 75 |
| Estate Administration | 70 |
| Trustee Powers | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Wills
- Property Law