DCA v DCB: Negligence Claim Against Law Firm for Failure to Diligently Process Gift Instructions

In DCA v DCB, the claimant, DCA, sued the defendant law firm, DCB, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging negligence in failing to diligently process instructions from DCA's mother, Mdm X, to transfer US$1.5 million to DCA as a gift. The claimant sought US$1.5 million and S$161,979.30 for legal fees incurred in a prior related decision. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the claim, finding that the law firm did not breach its duty of care to the claimant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed with costs payable to the defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Claimant sues law firm for negligence in failing to diligently process her mother's gift instructions. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of duty.

1.7 Decision Date

13 June 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
DCA	Claimant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Francis Chan Wei Wen of Titanium Law Chambers LLC Kenneth Loh Ding Chao of Titanium Law Chambers LLC
DCB	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Chua Sui Tong of Rev Law LLC Russell Ng Tse Jun of Rev Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Francis Chan Wei Wen	Titanium Law Chambers LLC
Kenneth Loh Ding Chao	Titanium Law Chambers LLC
Chua Sui Tong	Rev Law LLC
Russell Ng Tse Jun	Rev Law LLC

4. Facts

Mdm X instructed the defendant law firm to draft her will and handle estate matters in August 2013.
Mdm X wanted to make a gift of S$2.5 million to the claimant, her daughter.
Mdm X executed a will and deed of gift in December 2013.
In April 2016, Mdm X wanted to make another gift of US$1.5 million to the claimant.
Mdm X died in December 2016 before the deed of gift could be executed.
The claimant sued the defendant for negligence, alleging a failure to diligently process the gift instructions.
The defendant advised Mdm X to undergo a mental capacity assessment.

5. Formal Citations

DCA v DCB, Originating Claim No 94 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 154

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-08-01	Mdm X instructed the Defendant to draft her will.
2013-08-15	Letter of engagement signed by Mdm X.
2013-08-28	Ms S spoke to Mdm X through the telephone.
2013-09-17	Mdm X met with Ms S in New York.
2013-09-17	Mdm X examined by Dr K, a psychiatrist in New York.
2013-12-06	Mdm X signed and executed her will, a deed of gift, and a letter to her children.
2014-03-01	Mdm X reaffirmed the 2013 Documents in Singapore.
2015-01-01	Mdm X suffered a stroke.
2015-09-23	Mdm X gave instructions to Ms N by telephone.
2016-04-01	Mdm X told Ms Y that she wanted to make another cash gift to the claimant.
2016-06-01	Mdm X instructed the defendant to assist her with the transfer of US$1.5 million to the claimant.
2016-06-25	Ms Y wrote to Ms N regarding Mdm X's wish to award $1.5 million to Ms D.
2016-08-26	Video call took place between Ms N and Mdm X.
2016-09-14	Ms Y informed Ms N that she had returned from her holiday in Seattle.
2016-09-18	Ms Y answered Ms N’s queries on the draft.
2016-10-04	Ms N responded to Ms Y's email.
2016-10-05	Ms Y replied to Ms N, stating that Mdm X and Ms D have postponed their date of departure.
2016-10-20	Ms N wrote back to say that she was not familiar with psychiatrists in Toronto.
2016-11-08	Ms N stated that arrangements can be made for a psychiatric assessment in Toronto.
2016-11-10	Ms Y confirmed that it would be better for Mdm X to have her psychiatric assessment done in Toronto.
2016-12-05	Ms Y informed that she will not be able to help in the month of December.
2016-12-06	Ms Y stated that someone of Mdm X's age deteriorates from month to month.
2016-12-16	Mdm X died in New York.
2022-06-23	Claim commenced against the defendant.
2024-05-06	Trial began.
2024-05-07	Trial continued.
2024-05-28	Judgment reserved.
2024-06-14	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not negligent.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to progress matter with reasonable diligence
  - Erroneous advice regarding mental capacity assessment
  - Failure to advise on signing deed of gift promptly
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 761
Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant owed the claimant a duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 761

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 761	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a solicitor undertaking instructions that confer a benefit to a third party establishes a direct relationship with that third party.

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

Deed of Gift
Mental Capacity Assessment
Duty of Care
Negligence
Retainer

15.2 Keywords

Negligence
Law Firm
Duty of Care
Gift
Will
Estate
Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Negligence	90
Duty of Care	85
Wills and Probate	75
Mental Capacity	70
Legal Malpractice	60
Deed of Gift	50
Family Law	30
Contracts	25
Trust Law	20
Fiduciary Duties	15

16. Subjects

Professional Negligence
Tort Law