Phoa v Kasenda: Adducing Fresh Evidence, Standing, Personal Representatives
In Phoa Eugene (personal representative of the estate of Evelyn Phoa) v Oey Liang Ho (sole executor of the estate of Wirio Kasenda) and others, the Singapore High Court dismissed three applications by the plaintiff, Eugene Phoa, after the trial for Suit No 1130 of 2020. The suit concerns the beneficial interests of Evelyn Phoa in the shareholding of Supratechnic Pte Ltd against the Kasenda family. The applications involved adducing further evidence, appointing a representative for Evelyn’s Estate, and amending the title-in-action. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan J, dismissed all three applications.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
All three applications by the plaintiff were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding adducing fresh evidence, standing, and personal representatives in a dispute over Supratechnic Pte Ltd shares.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene Phoa | Plaintiff | Individual | Applications Dismissed | Lost | |
| Oey Liang Ho @ Henry Kasenda | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Oey Liang Gie @ Jimmy Kasenda | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Salman Kasenda @ Oey Liang Hien @ Oei Liang Hien | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Ridwan Kasenda @ Oey Liang Ley @ Oei Liang Ley | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Joshua Huang Thien En | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Wellington Phoa | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| Angeline Teh @ Angeline Phoa | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won | |
| John Phoa | Defendant | Individual | Applications Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Eugene Phoa commenced a suit concerning the beneficial interests of Evelyn Phoa in Supratechnic Pte Ltd.
- The defendants challenged Eugene's standing to bring the suit, arguing he did not extract the resealed grant of foreign letters of administration.
- Eugene applied to adduce further evidence, appoint him as a representative, and amend the title-in-action after the trial.
- Evelyn Phoa passed away intestate in Canada on 7 November 1981.
- The Family Justice Courts refused Eugene's request for leave to extract the resealed grant of foreign letters of administration on 30 March 2022.
- The CED issued the Certificate of Postponement to the FJC on 18 August 2023.
5. Formal Citations
- Phoa Eugene (personal representative of the estate of Evelyn Phoa (alias Lauw Evelyn Siew Chiang), deceased and personal representative of the estate of William Phoa, deceased) v Oey Liang Ho (alias Henry Kasenda) (sole executor of the estate of Wirio Kasenda (alias Oey Giok Tjeng), deceased) and others, Suit No 1130 of 2020 (Summonses Nos 2544, 2545 and 2546 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Supratechnic Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore | |
| Evelyn Phoa passed away intestate in Canada | |
| William Phoa passed away | |
| Beneficiaries to Evelyn’s Estate obtained the grant of letters of administration in Canada | |
| Application to extract the resealed grant of the Canadian LA in Singapore was filed as P 129/2006 | |
| Family Justice Courts granted an order-in-terms on P 129 | |
| Eugene wrote to the Commissioner for Estate Duty to request a postponement of estate duty | |
| Final email from Mr Wellington Phoa to Mr Ridwan Kasenda | |
| Eugene instructed his solicitors to resume communications with the CED | |
| Eugene received a last communication from the CED, where the CED provided an estimated amount of estate tax | |
| Eugene commenced the Suit | |
| Original Defence filed | |
| Defence (Amendment No. 2) filed | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) filed | |
| Defence (Amendment No. 3) filed | |
| Parties filed their AEICs | |
| Parties filed supplementary AEICs | |
| Parties filed their respective opening statements | |
| Eugene's solicitors wrote to the CED asking them to issue the Certificate of Postponement | |
| Trial for the Suit started | |
| Eugene disclosed post-2012 communications that SILLC had with the CED and the FJC | |
| Defendants’ solicitors highlighted issues relating to discovery and standing | |
| LVMLC emphasised that issues should be dealt with by way of submissions as part of the closing submissions | |
| Parties filed their closing submissions | |
| SILLC wrote to the court proposing that the parties defer dealing with the issue of standing in their reply submissions | |
| SILLC tendered another letter to court, in which it requested for an extension of time to file the reply submissions | |
| The CED issued the Certificate of Postponement to the FJC | |
| Parties filed their reply submissions | |
| Eugene filed the present three applications | |
| The FJC allowed the extraction of the resealed grant of the Canadian LA | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Adducing Fresh Evidence After Trial
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce further evidence, finding that the evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and would not have significantly influenced the case outcome.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to obtain evidence with reasonable diligence
- Evidence would not have an important influence on the result of the case
- Prejudice to the defendants
- Related Cases:
- [1954] 1 WLR 1489
- Standing
- Outcome: The court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to bring the suit because he had not extracted the resealed grant of foreign letters of administration before commencing the action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to extract resealed grant of foreign letters of administration
- Commencement of suit before obtaining proper standing
- Personal capacity to sue as a beneficiary
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 27
- Appointment of Personal Representative
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to appoint the plaintiff as a personal representative, finding that the plaintiff had commenced the suit as a personal representative, not in his personal capacity, and thus did not meet the requirements for appointment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements under Order 15 Rule 15(1) of the Rules of Court
- Special circumstances justifying the appointment
- Whether the applicant is already a party to the proceedings in their personal capacity
- Amendment of Title-in-Action
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to amend the title-in-action, finding that the amendments were not necessary and had come too late, potentially prejudicing the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Necessity of the amendment
- Timeliness of the amendment
- Prejudice to the other party
8. Remedies Sought
- Adducing further evidence after trial
- Appointment as a representative of Evelyn's Estate
- Amendment of the title-in-action
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 27 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that special circumstances can allow a beneficiary to sue on behalf of an unadministered estate. |
| Prince Court Medical Centre Sdn Bhd v Germguard Technologies (M) Sdn Bhd | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 MLJ 1 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the discretion to reopen a trial before judgment is entered should be used sparingly. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the threefold requirements for admitting further evidence on appeal. |
| Toh Eng Lan v Foong Fook Yue and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 833 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the Ladd v Marshall requirements were applied. |
| ARW v Comptroller of Income Tax and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 499 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the Ladd v Marshall requirements were applied. |
| Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the two-step analysis that a court should adopt in dealing with an application to adduce fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Chye Hwa Luan and others v Do, Allyn T | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHCR 10 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the process for the extraction of sealed grant of letters of administration. |
| Singapore Gems Co v Personal representatives of the estate of Akber Ali Mohamed Bukardeem, deceased | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 362 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that an administrator has not clothed himself with that status until he has extracted the grant. |
| Issar Singh, Son of Bhola Singh and another v Samund Singh, Son of Mayiah | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [1941] MLJ 28 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff who sues as an administrator must extract the resealed grant of the foreign letters of administration before starting action. |
| Re Ong Soon Chuan | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 380 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an administrator may not even commence proceedings until he has obtained the grant of letters of administration. |
| Jennison (as personal representative of the estate of Graham Jennison (deceased)) v Jennison and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 2 WLR 1017 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the resealing of foreign letters of administration should not have retrospective effect. |
| Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 666 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is also relevant to consider any prejudice to the defendants if I allow the further evidence to be admitted. |
| Ang Leng Hock v Leo Ee Ah | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is also relevant to consider any prejudice to the defendants if I allow the further evidence to be admitted. |
| Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 822 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements that have to be present before the court can exercise its power to appoint a person to represent the estate of a deceased person. |
| Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Kao Chai-Chau Linda and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that special circumstances are not confined solely to cases where the personal representative had defaulted in acting to recover the property. |
| Joseph Hayim Hayim v Citibank NA | Privy Council | Yes | [1987] AC 730 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that special circumstances are not confined solely to cases where the personal representative had defaulted in acting to recover the property. |
| Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 216 | Singapore | Cited for the analytical framework with respect to applications for an amendment of pleadings. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 Rule 15(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Probate and Administration Act 1934 | Singapore |
| s 47 of the Probate and Administration Act 1934 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Standing
- Resealed grant of foreign letters of administration
- Personal representative
- Beneficial interest
- Certificate of Postponement
- Further evidence
- Title-in-action
- Estate duty
- Exceptional circumstances
- Ladd v Marshall requirements
15.2 Keywords
- standing
- evidence
- probate
- administration
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Estate Administration | 85 |
| Wills and Probate | 75 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 30 |
| Jurisdiction | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Probate and Administration