Tan Cheng Cheng v Shamlal: Conversion & Estate Admin of Richard Mille Watch

The administratrices of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, namely Tan Cheng Cheng, Tan San San, and Keh Lay Hong, appealed against the District Court's decision in their claim against Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar and Tham Poh Kwai for conversion of a Richard Mille watch. The High Court of Singapore, General Division, dismissed the appeal, finding that neither Mr. Tuppani nor Mdm. Tham committed an act of conversion. The court held that Mr. Tuppani's act of handing the watch to Mdm. Yeo did not constitute conversion, and there was no credible evidence to prove that Mdm. Tham received the watch.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding conversion of a Richard Mille watch. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no conversion by either respondent.

1.7 Decision Date

11 July 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Cheng Cheng (Chen Qingqing)	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Yeo Lai Hock Nichol, Qua Bi Qi, Leong Wen Jia Nicholas
Tan San San (Chen Shanshan)	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Yeo Lai Hock Nichol, Qua Bi Qi, Leong Wen Jia Nicholas
Keh Lay Hong (Guo Lihong)	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Yeo Lai Hock Nichol, Qua Bi Qi, Leong Wen Jia Nicholas
Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Joseph Ignatius, Suja Susan Thomas d/o B Thomas
Tham Poh Kwai	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	David Nayar

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Yeo Lai Hock Nichol	Nine Yards Chambers LLC
Qua Bi Qi	Nine Yards Chambers LLC
Leong Wen Jia Nicholas	Nine Yards Chambers LLC
Joseph Ignatius	Ignatius J & Associates
Suja Susan Thomas d/o B Thomas	Ignatius J & Associates
David Nayar	David Nayar and Associates

4. Facts

Spencer Tuppani was fatally stabbed on 10 July 2017.
At the time of his death, Spencer Tuppani was wearing a Richard Mille watch.
Mr Tuppani received the Watch and other belongings from the police on 11 July 2017.
Mr Tuppani left the Watch at Leedon Residence, where Mdm Yeo resided.
Mdm Tham allegedly possessed and sold the Watch.
The appellants obtained the grant of letters of administration on 10 July 2018.
The appellants claimed Mr Tuppani and Mdm Tham were liable for conversion of the Watch.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Cheng Cheng and others v Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar and another, District Court Appeal No 42 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 181
Tan Cheng Cheng (Chen Qingqing) and others (as the administratrices of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) v Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar and another, , [2023] SGDC 293

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-01	Mr Tuppani and Mdm Tham divorced
2017-07-10	Spencer Tuppani fatally stabbed
2017-07-11	Mr Tuppani collected Deceased's belongings from CID
2017-07-11	Mr Tuppani left the Watch at Leedon Residence
2017-07-01	Mdm Tham moved into a condominium known as Hundred Trees sometime in early August or end July
2017-08-01	Mdm Tham received $160,000 in cash sometime in late August
2018-07-10	Appellants obtained grant of letters of administration
2018-11-20	Appellants extracted the grant of letters of administration
2019-11-01	Mdm Keh contacted Mr Tuppani about the Watch
2020-02-04	Appellants sent a letter of demand to Mr Tuppani
2020-03-06	Appellants filed suit in the High Court against Mr Tuppani
2020-04-22	WhatsApp messages exchanged between Mdm Tan and her sister
2020-12-08	Mdm Tham joined as co-defendant
2021-12-16	Mdm Yeo listed as one of Mr Tuppani’s witnesses
2022-03-28	Mdm Tan and Mr Tuppani filed AEICs
2023-08-14	Mdm Yeo did not turn up for trial
2023-01-01	District Judge issued Judgment
2024-01-27	Appellants’ Case dated
2024-02-28	1st and 2nd Respondent’s Case dated
2024-03-27	Judgment date
2024-05-02	Appellants, 1st and 2nd Respondent’s Further Submissions dated
2024-07-12	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Conversion
- Outcome: The court held that neither respondent committed an act of conversion.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Act of conversion
  - Intention to assert an interest
  - Possessory rights
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 4 SLR 15
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 159
  - [2023] SGDC 293
  - [2013] SGHC 7
  - [2013] 4 SLR 409
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
  - [2002] 2 AC 883
  - (1874–5) LR 7 HL 757
  - (1815) 4 M&S 259
  - (1841) 8 M&W 540
  - [2004] QB 286
  - (1874) LR 9 Exch 86
  - [2011] NSWCA 342
  - [1946] 74 CLR 204
  - (1878-1879) LR 4 Ex D 188
  - [1963] 1 WLR 644
Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence
- Outcome: The court rejected the appellants' contention that Mdm Yeo's out-of-court statements fell within the scope of s 32(1)(c) EA and excluded the evidence in the interests of justice.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Section 32(1)(c) of the Evidence Act
  - Statements against interest
  - Discretion to exclude evidence
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 154
  - [2015] 2 SLR 686

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 4 SLR 15	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the deceased’s personal belongings vest immediately in the Public Trustee, and then in the administrator upon the grant of letters of administration.
Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Ching Miow, deceased)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 159	Singapore	Cited for the principle that upon extraction of the order of the grant, the administrator may seek recovery from a wrongdoer who has seized or converted the goods during the intervening period between the deceased’s passing and the grant of letters of administration.
Tan Cheng Cheng (Chen Qingqing) and others (as the administratrices of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) v Shamlal s/o Tuppani Bisaysar and another	District Court	Yes	[2023] SGDC 293	Singapore	The judgment being appealed from in the present case.
Thomas Teddy and another v Kuiper Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 7	Singapore	Cited by the appellants to argue that Mr Tuppani had the intention to assert an interest over the Watch which was inconsistent with the rights of the appellants.
Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 409	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in an action for conversion, what the claimant needs to prove is that he has a superior right to possession as against the defendant.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited for the principles concerning the applicable threshold for appellate interference with the decision of a trial judge and the tort of conversion.
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 883	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that for the tort of conversion to be made out, the conduct must be so extensive an encroachment on the rights of the owner as to exclude him from use and possession of the goods.
Francis Hollins v George Fowler	House of Lords	Yes	(1874–5) LR 7 HL 757	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that liability for the tort of conversion is strict.
Stephens v Elwall	King's Bench	Yes	(1815) 4 M&S 259	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a person is guilty of a conversion who intermeddles with my property and disposes of it, and it is no answer that he acted under authority from another, who had himself no authority to dispose of it.
Fouldes v Willoughby	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1841) 8 M&W 540	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a simple asportation of a chattel, without any intention of making any further use of it, although it may be a sufficient foundation for an action of trespass, is not sufficient to establish a conversion.
Marcq v Christie Manson & Woods Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] QB 286	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the defendant had only acted ministerially and merely changed the position of the goods and not the property in them.
Hiort v Bott	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1874) LR 9 Exch 86	United Kingdom	Cited as an example where the defendant was found liable for conversion of the plaintiffs’ barley.
Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] NSWCA 342	Australia	Cited for the principle that the intention as to the act or dealing should be assessed in the real context in which the act takes place.
Penfolds Wines Proprietary Limited v James Peter Elliott	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1946] 74 CLR 204	Australia	Cited as an example of a case with capacity for difference of view as to the quality of the act as an interference or not.
Hiort v London & North Western Railway Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1878-1879) LR 4 Ex D 188	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that conversion has been surrounded in technicality, but the courts will attempt to apply commonsense in its application.
General and Finance Facilities v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1963] 1 WLR 644	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that where the goods have been delivered to a third party before the date of the demand, it is the prior wrongful delivery that may constitute conversion, and not the subsequent refusal to comply with the demand.
Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 430	Singapore	Cited for the principle that reliance on out-of-court statements would amount to hearsay evidence.
Velstra Pte Ltd v Dexia Bank NV	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 154	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for a hearsay statement to be admissible under s 32(1)(c) EA, it must be shown that the person who made the statement was conscious that what he said was against his own interest.
Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 686	Singapore	Cited for the factors which the court could take into account when determining whether a relevant statement should nevertheless be excluded pursuant to s 32(3) EA.
Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 855	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is the claimant in an action for conversion who bears the legal burden of proving there has been an act of conversion by the defendant.
Thio Keng Poon v Thio Syn Pyn	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 143	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an adverse inference should not be drawn pursuant to s 116 (read with Illustration (g)) EA, if the court is satisfied that there is some credible explanation for the witness’s absence.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Probate and Administration Act 1934	Singapore
Evidence Act 1893	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Conversion
Richard Mille watch
Letters of administration
Involuntary bailment
Hearsay evidence
Relation back
Possessory title
Involuntary bailee

15.2 Keywords

conversion
estate administration
Richard Mille
Singapore
High Court
appeal

16. Subjects

Torts
Property Law
Civil Procedure
Estate Administration

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Conversion
Evidence
Admissibility of evidence
Probate and Administration