WDT v WDS: Appeal on Incomplete Gift & Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
This is an appeal by WDT against the decision of the High Court in WDS v WDT, regarding a declaration that WDT did not have a valid claim for US$1.5m as a creditor of the deceased’s estate. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal and two related applications to adduce further evidence, finding that the deceased had not done all that was necessary to effect the gift of US$1.5m to WDT. The court ordered WDT to pay costs of $25,000 to WDS.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding a US$1.5m gift. Court dismissed appeal, finding the deceased did not complete all necessary steps to effect the gift. Applications to adduce further evidence also dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| WDT | Appellant, Defendant, Applicant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan, Wong Xiao Wei |
| WDS | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Wah Hsien-Wen Terence, Mok Zi Cong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Kannan Ramesh | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Debbie Ong Siew Ling | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Sien Liang Joseph | LVM Law Chambers LLC |
| Muk Chen Yeen Jonathan | LVM Law Chambers LLC |
| Wong Xiao Wei | LVM Law Chambers LLC |
| Wah Hsien-Wen Terence | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Mok Zi Cong | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- The deceased had four children, all beneficiaries under her will.
- The appellant lived with the deceased in Toronto, Canada until the deceased’s passing in 2016.
- In January 2015, the deceased suffered a serious stroke.
- In 2013, WongPartnership assisted the deceased with making a gift of S$2.5m to the appellant.
- On 25 June 2016, B wrote to WongPartnership to inform them that the deceased intended to make a gift of another US$1.5m to the appellant.
- On 14 September 2016, the deceased signed a letter instructing her lawyers and bankers to execute all necessary funds transfers for the Gift to the appellant.
- The deceased passed away before a mental capacity assessment could be done and a deed of gift executed.
5. Formal Citations
- WDT v WDS and other matters, Civil Appeal No 55 of 2022, [2023] SGHC(A) 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| WongPartnership assisted the deceased with the preparation of her will. | |
| WongPartnership assisted the deceased with making a gift of S$2.5m to the appellant. | |
| The deceased reviewed and confirmed the contents of her will and deed of gift before a psychiatrist in Singapore. | |
| The deceased suffered a serious stroke. | |
| The deceased gave the appellant a power of attorney over one of her bank accounts. | |
| B wrote to WongPartnership to inform them that the deceased intended to make a gift of another US$1.5m to the appellant. | |
| WongPartnership confirmed the deceased’s instructions via video call. | |
| The deceased asked B whether the appellant had received the Gift. | |
| The deceased signed a letter instructing her lawyers and bankers to execute all necessary funds transfers for the Gift to the appellant. | |
| WongPartnership sent a draft deed of gift to B for the deceased’s approval. | |
| The deceased passed away in New York. | |
| Originating Summons No 9 of 2021 was heard in the High Court. | |
| The Appellate Division of the High Court heard the appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Incomplete Gift
- Outcome: The court held that the deceased had not done all that was necessary and in her power to effect the gift.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1952] 1 Ch 499
- Adducing Fresh Evidence on Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the new evidence sought to be admitted was not relevant to the appeal and dismissed the applications.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the appellant did not have a valid claim for the sum of US$1.5m as a creditor of the deceased’s estate.
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| In re Rose; Rose v Inland Revenue Commissioners | Chancery Division | No | [1952] 1 Ch 499 | England and Wales | Cited for the rule that a gift will be regarded as complete if the donor has done all that is necessary and in her power to effect the gift. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | No | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the test to determine if new evidence should be admitted. |
| WDS v WDT | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHCF 12 | Singapore | Appeal from the decision of the Judge of the General Division of the High Court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Gift
- Deed of Gift
- Mental Capacity Assessment
- Power of Attorney
- 14 September Letter
- In re Rose
15.2 Keywords
- gift
- appeal
- evidence
- incomplete gift
- power of attorney
16. Subjects
- Trusts and Estates
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Gifts
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals