Chan Wai Leen v Ho Dat Khoon: Appeal on Property Transfer & Gift Validity

The Appellate Division of the High Court heard an appeal by Chan Wai Leen and Wong Cai Juan against the decision of the General Division regarding Suit 1095, Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen and Wong Cai Juan. The suit concerned the transfer of a property from Ho Dat Khoon to Wong Cai Juan, which Ho Dat Khoon sought to invalidate, claiming she did not intend to make an inter vivos gift. The High Court found the transfer was made under a mistake and ordered its cancellation. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal and ordered the Appellants to pay costs to the Respondent. The court also directed the Registrar to refer the conduct of the Plaintiff's solicitor to the Law Society of Singapore.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the validity of a property transfer. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the transfer was made under mistake.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chan Wai LeenAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostNg Hui Min, Mok Zi Cong
Wong Cai JuanAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostNg Hui Min, Mok Zi Cong
Ho Dat KhoonRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal UpheldWonRanvir Kumar Singh, Shiv Kumar Singh, Ong Jade Yi, Eben Ong Eng Tuan

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Kannan RameshJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Hui MinDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Mok Zi CongDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Ranvir Kumar SinghUniLegal LLC
Shiv Kumar SinghUniLegal LLC
Ong Jade YiUniLegal LLC
Eben Ong Eng TuanLoh Eben Ong LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff signed a Transfer of Property in favor of D2 on 2 December 2016.
  2. Plaintiff also signed a will on the same day.
  3. Plaintiff claimed she did not intend to make an inter vivos gift.
  4. The Transfer stated that the Transfer was made “BY WAY OF GIFT”.
  5. The Judge found that the Transfer was made under a mistake.
  6. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff had the mental capacity to execute the Transfer.
  7. The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff held the Property on trust for Mdm HTN’s family.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Wai Leen (in her personal capacity and as the administratrix of the estate of Wong Ching Fong, deceased) and another v Ho Dat Khoon, Civil Appeal No 57 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff's late father purchased the Property and registered it in the Plaintiff’s name.
Plaintiff signed the Transfer in favor of D2 as the sole transferee and also signed a will.
The Transfer was registered in D2’s name.
Mr. Ho Chiuen Sheey and Ms. Nicola Reece Sheffield Ho Chuien Yheeg became the attorneys of the Plaintiff.
Plaintiff commenced Suit 1095 against the Defendants.
Trial was held.
Appeal was heard.
Appeal was dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Mistake
    • Outcome: The court found that the Transfer was made under a mistake.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mistaken belief as to the legal effect of the Transfer
  2. Rectification of Land Register
    • Outcome: The court upheld the order for rectification of the land register.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2006] 4 SLR(R) 884
      • [2015] 5 SLR 62
  3. Costs
    • Outcome: The court upheld the Judge’s order on costs and disbursements.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2022] 5 SLR 525

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Cancellation of the registration of the Transfer
  2. Rectification of the land-register

9. Cause of Actions

  • Mistake
  • Rectification of land register

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited for the legal and evidential burden of proof.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bebe bte MohammadCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 884SingaporeCited for the interpretation of section 160(1)(b) of the Land Titles Act regarding rectification of the land register.
Mahidon Nichiar bte Mohd Ali and others v Dawood Sultan KamaldinCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 62SingaporeCited for the principle that a proprietor claiming otherwise than as a purchaser does not have better title than that held by his immediate predecessor.
Comfort Management Pte Ltd v OGSP Engineering Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] 5 SLR 525SingaporeCited for the criteria for a Type I Order, which deprives the successful party of the right to recover all or part of his costs of the action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore
Legal Profession Act 1966Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Inter vivos gift
  • Testamentary gift
  • Transfer
  • Land register
  • Rectification
  • Indefeasibility of title

15.2 Keywords

  • property transfer
  • gift
  • mistake
  • land register
  • rectification
  • Singapore
  • appeal

16. Subjects

  • Land Law
  • Trusts
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

  • Gifts
  • Civil Procedure
  • Land Law
  • Trust Law