UAM v UAN: Probate Action over Validity of Wills & Property Dispute

In a probate action before the Family Justice Courts of Singapore, UAM (Plaintiff) sought to revoke the grant of probate for a 1980 will of his mother and to validate a later 1981 will, which favored him. UAN and UAO (Defendants) counterclaimed, seeking to uphold the 1980 will. The dispute centered on the mother's one-fifth share of a property. The court dismissed UAM's claim and allowed the Defendants' counterclaim, pronouncing against the validity of the 1981 Will and holding the 1980 Will to be valid.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Family Justice Courts of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Probate

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Probate action concerning the validity of two wills and a property dispute. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim and allowed the defendant's counterclaim.

1.7 Decision Date

12 April 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
UAM	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Foo Soon Yien of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation Beverly Ng of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation Gemma Tse of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
UAN	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Allowed	Won	Hee Theng Fong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Sharmini Selveratnam of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Jaclyn Leong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP
UAO	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Allowed	Won	Hee Theng Fong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Sharmini Selveratnam of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Jaclyn Leong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Foo Soon Yien	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Beverly Ng	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Gemma Tse	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Hee Theng Fong	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Sharmini Selveratnam	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Jaclyn Leong	Harry Elias Partnership LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff sought to revoke the grant of probate for the 1980 will and validate the 1981 will.
The 1980 Will appointed the plaintiff’s late brother and his wife as co-executors.
The 1981 Will appointed the plaintiff as the sole executor.
The mother's estate consisted of a one-fifth share of a property.
The plaintiff had unsuccessfully sought to establish ownership of the property in prior actions.
The plaintiff and his brother had a strained relationship.
The mother executed both the 1980 and 1981 wills.
The plaintiff prepared a trust acknowledgement for his mother to sign.
The plaintiff brought his mother to a lawyer to execute the 1981 Will.
The plaintiff did not seek probate for the 1981 will for many years.
The lawyers who were involved in the execution of the 1981 Will had no actual recollection of the incident.

5. Formal Citations

UAM v UAN and another, HCF/Suit No 3 of 2015, [2017] SGHCF 10

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1966-01-01	Plaintiff's family purchased the Property as tenants-in-common.
1979-01-26	Plaintiff's brother lodged a police report against the plaintiff.
1979-05-09	Plaintiff's brother lodged a second police report against the plaintiff.
1979-08-14	Plaintiff received a letter demanding he vacate the Property.
1980-03-15	Plaintiff received a letter stating that proceedings would be commenced against him in relation to the Property.
1980-04-15	Mother and father executed wills.
1980-11-29	Plaintiff and his brother received a letter demanding repayment of mortgage.
1981-01-17	Plaintiff paid the outstanding mortgage sum.
1981-06-09	Plaintiff visited his mother and prepared documents for her to sign.
1981-06-23	Mother executed the 1981 Will.
1981-11-08	Father passed away.
1986-11-20	Mother passed away.
1990-03-13	Petition for probate of the mother’s 1980 Will was filed.
1990-12-10	Probate was extracted on the 1980 Will.
2006-01-07	Plaintiff's brother passed away.
2009-01-01	1st defendant commenced DCP 926 of 2009 to obtain probate.
2011-10-14	Plaintiff commenced Suit No.1.
2014-01-27	The High Court dismissed the consolidated action.
2014-07-31	1st defendant applied in Suit No.3 for an order of partition of the Property.
2015-03-16	Application allowed in Suit No. 3.
2015-07-13	Plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants.
2016-03-14	Plaintiff’s appeal against the entire decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.
2017-01-17	Judgment reserved.
2017-04-13	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Will
- Outcome: The court pronounced against the validity of the 1981 Will and held the 1980 Will to be valid.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Testamentary capacity
  - Knowledge and approval of contents
  - Undue influence
  - Suspicious circumstances
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's action amounted to an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Extended doctrine of res judicata
  - Failure to raise issue in prior proceedings
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel applied to bar the plaintiff's contention that the 1980 Will is not valid.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Final and conclusive judgment on the merits
  - Identity of subject matter
  - Identity between parties
Laches
- Outcome: The court found that if laches applied, it would be unconscionable to allow the plaintiff's claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unconscionable delay
  - Prejudice to the defendant

8. Remedies Sought

Revocation of earlier grant of probate
Pronouncement against the validity of the 1980 Will
Pronouncement in solemn form the 1981 Will

9. Cause of Actions

Revocation of Probate
Pronouncement of Will in Solemn Form

10. Practice Areas

Probate Litigation
Estate Planning
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100	N/A	Cited as foundational authority for the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	N/A	Cited for the enunciation of the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the application of the extended doctrine of res judicata in Singapore.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited for the application of the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Greenhalgh v Mallard	N/A	Yes	[1947] 2 All ER 255	N/A	Cited for the principle that abuse of process extends to issues that could have been raised earlier.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53	Singapore	Cited for the principle that abuse of process extends to issues that could have been raised earlier.
Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another	N/A	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 1322	Singapore	Cited for the considerations in determining abuse of process and dispensing with the requirement of identity of parties.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine of res judicata is a matter of weighing competing interests.
Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc and others	N/A	Yes	[2007] EWCA Civ 1260	N/A	Distinguished from complex commercial matters where incremental litigation may be a bona fide case management decision.
Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) and others	N/A	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 2	N/A	Distinguished from cases where adding claims would transform the proceedings.
Motor Oil Hellas (Corinth) Refineries SA v Shipping Corporation of India (The “Kanchenjunga”)	House of Lords	Yes	[1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 391	N/A	Cited for the explanation of waiver by election as an abandonment of a right.
Chai Cher Watt (trading as Chuang Aik Engineering Works) v SDL Technologies Pte Ltd and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 152	Singapore	Cited for the explanation of waiver by election as an abandonment of a right.
Ang Sin Hock v Khoo Eng Lim	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 179	Singapore	Cited for the criteria where the assertion of inconsistent rights may be held to amount to an election.
Sargent v ASL Developments Limited	N/A	Yes	(1974) 131 CLR 634	Australia	Cited for the criteria where the assertion of inconsistent rights may be held to amount to an election.
The “Pacific Vigorous”	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 374	Singapore	Cited for the criteria where the assertion of inconsistent rights may be held to amount to an election.
Oliver Ashworth (Holdings) Ltd v Ballard (Kent) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2000] Ch 12	N/A	Cited to illustrate that there must be a choice between valid substantive rights for election to apply.
Evans v Bartlam	N/A	Yes	[1937] AC 473	N/A	Cited for the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another (Ultramarine Holdings Ltd, intervener)	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358	Singapore	Cited for the application of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Express Newspapers v News (UK) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1990] 1 WLR 1320	N/A	Cited for the extended application of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation to encompass inconsistent positions.
Chee Mu Lin Muriel v Chee Ka Lin Caroline (Chee Ping Chian Alexander and another, interveners)	N/A	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 373	Singapore	Cited for the principles on burden of proof in relation to propounding and challenging the validity of wills.
Lian Kok Hong v Lian Bee Leng and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 3 SLR 405	Singapore	Cited for the principles on burden of proof in relation to propounding and challenging the validity of wills and the relevance of suspicious circumstances.
W Scott Fulton, Isabella D Fulton and Margaret Fulton v Charles Batty Andrew and Thomas Wilson	N/A	Yes	(1874–1875) LR 7 HL 448	N/A	Cited for the principle that further evidence may be required even if the will was read over to the testator.
In the Estate of Musgrove	N/A	Yes	[1927] P 264	N/A	Cited for the principle that non-contemporaneous events are only relevant if they have a direct bearing on whether the testator knew and approved the contents of the will.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of issue estoppel.
D.S.V. Silo-Und Verwaltungsgesellschaft mbH v Owners of The Sennar and 13 Other Ships	N/A	Yes	[1985] 1 WLR 490	N/A	Cited for the definition of a final and conclusive judgment on the merits.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a final and conclusive judgment on the merits.
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited for the discrete conceptual strands of the identity of subject matter requirement in issue estoppel.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence	N/A	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a resulting trust crystallizes at the point where the property is acquired.
Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 101	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court does not necessarily have to award an interest in the land to the plaintiff to satisfy the equity based on proprietary estoppel.
Peyman v Lanjani	N/A	Yes	[1985] Ch 457	N/A	Cited for the principle that a party with legal advice will be more easily presumed to know the law.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police	N/A	Yes	[1982] AC 529	N/A	Cited for the principle that courts focus on the substance as opposed to the form in considering whether the parties involved in the two sets of proceedings are effectively the same.
eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 1200	Singapore	Discusses the application of the equitable defence of laches.
Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 769	Singapore	Discusses the application of the equitable defence of laches.
Management Corporation Strata Titles Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 418	Singapore	Discusses the application of the equitable defence of laches.
Oestreich v Brunnhuber	Ontario Superior Court of Justice	Yes	[2001] WDFL 406	Canada	Discusses the application of laches to probate actions.
Re O’Reilly (No 2)	Ontario High Court	Yes	(1980) 28 OR (2d) 481	Canada	Discusses the application of laches to probate actions.
Bermingham v Bermingham	Ontario Superior Court of Justice	Yes	[2007] OJ No 1320	Canada	Discusses the application of laches to probate actions.
Dickman v Holley (estate of Simpson)	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2013] NSWSC 18	Australia	Discusses the application of laches to probate actions.
Re Goode	N/A	Yes	(1890) 11 NSWR (Eq)	Australia	Discusses the application of laches to probate actions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Probate
Testamentary capacity
Undue influence
Abuse of process
Issue estoppel
Laches
Res judicata
Beneficial ownership
Trust acknowledgement
Family arrangement

15.2 Keywords

Probate action
Will validity
Property dispute
Abuse of process
Issue estoppel
Singapore law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Abuse of Process	85
Wills and Probate	75
Succession Law	70
Laches	65
Chancery and Equity	60
Estoppel	50
Civil Procedure	40

16. Subjects

Probate
Wills
Civil Procedure
Equity