Tan Wei Leong v Tan Lee Chin: Setting Aside Deed of Family Arrangement
In Tan Wei Leong v Tan Lee Chin, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over a Deed of Family Arrangement (DFA) signed in May 2012. The plaintiff, Tan Wei Leong, sought a declaration that the DFA was valid and binding, while the defendants, Tan Lee Chin and Tan Wan Fen, argued it should be set aside. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Andrew Ang, found that both Mdm Lai and the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the contents of a draft will, leading to the DFA being set aside. The plaintiff's claim was dismissed, and he was ordered to bear the costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Probate
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case regarding the validity of a Deed of Family Arrangement (DFA) and its setting aside due to non-disclosure of material facts.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Wei Leong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Lee Chin | Defendant | Individual | Successful Defense | Won | |
| Tan Wan Fen | Defendant | Individual | Successful Defense | Won | |
| Estate of Lai See Moi @ Lai Meow Ching | Defendant | Trust | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The dispute centers on a Deed of Family Arrangement (DFA) signed in May 2012.
- The plaintiff sought a declaration that the DFA is valid and binding.
- The defendants argued that the DFA ought to be set aside.
- Mr. Tan passed away on 8 February 2012, while Mdm Lai passed away on 10 October 2016, both intestate.
- Mr. Tan had instructed Mr. William Ong to prepare a will, but it was never executed.
- The draft will provided that the plaintiff was to be the sole Executor and Trustee.
- The parties to the DFA were the plaintiff, the first defendant, the second defendant, and Mdm Lai.
- The living litigants expressly agreed to waive their inheritance rights to the Chinese Assets.
- Mdm Lai knew the division of assets the draft will directed, but failed to disclose what she knew.
- The plaintiff knew that he would be advantaged by the division of assets in accordance with the draft will.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Wei Leong v Tan Lee Chin and others, Suit No 904 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 124
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First meeting between Mr. Tan and Mr. Ong regarding will preparation | |
| Mr. Tan passed away | |
| Meeting at Gurbani & Co LLC office | |
| Email from the plaintiff to Mr Goh | |
| Plaintiff, second defendant, and Mdm Lai signed the DFA | |
| First defendant signed the DFA | |
| First supplemental deed dated | |
| Mr Goh showed Mdm Lai a copy of the draft will | |
| Second supplemental deed dated | |
| Mdm Lai passed away | |
| Forged power of attorney | |
| First defendant commenced legal proceedings in China | |
| Suit commenced by the plaintiff | |
| Draft will disclosed to the second defendant | |
| Mdm Lai’s estate added as third defendant to the suit | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Trial | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Validity of Deed of Family Arrangement
- Outcome: The court found the Deed of Family Arrangement to be invalid due to the non-disclosure of material facts by Mdm Lai and the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-disclosure of material facts
- Undue influence
- Duress
- Misrepresentation
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 357
- Non-Disclosure of Material Facts
- Outcome: The court held that Mdm Lai and the plaintiff failed to disclose material facts regarding the contents of the draft will, which constituted grounds for setting aside the DFA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 5 SLR 357
- (1863) 46 ER 285
- Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that the defendants' pleadings were not fatal to their cases and that it would be unjust to ignore the truth of the matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Unpleaded points
- Inconsistent cases
- Related Cases:
- [1985-1986] SLR(R) 311
- [2012] 1 SLR 457
- [2015] 1 SLR 875
- [2017] SGHC 229
- [2012] 4 SLR 231
- [2015] 5 SLR 1422
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the DFA is valid and binding
- Setting aside of the DFA
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaratory Relief
- Setting Aside Deed of Family Arrangement
10. Practice Areas
- Estate Planning
- Probate Litigation
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuek Siang Wei and another v Kuek Siew Chew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 357 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a family arrangement and the principles governing its validity, including the importance of fairness, absence of concealment, and the court's reluctance to apply excessive formalism in interpreting such agreements. |
| Pek Nam Kee and another v Peh Lam Kong and another | Unknown | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR(R) 750 | Singapore | Cited to support the observation that family arrangements are often founded on sentiment rather than commerce. |
| L’Estrange v F Graucob Limited | Unknown | Yes | [1934] 2 KB 394 | England | Cited for the principle that a party is bound by the terms of a contract they sign, absent fraud or misrepresentation, even if they did not read or understand those terms. |
| Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 295 | Singapore | Endorsed the principle from L'Estrange v F Graucob Limited that a party is bound by the terms of a contract they sign, absent fraud or misrepresentation. |
| Gordon v Gordon | Unknown | Yes | (1821) 36 ER 910 | England | Cited for the principle that where family agreements have been fairly entered into, a court of equity will not disturb the quiet, even if the parties misunderstood their situation or rights. |
| Greenwood v Greenwood | Unknown | Yes | (1863) 46 ER 285 | England | Cited for the principle that parties to a family arrangement must be on an equal footing, with full and fair communication of all circumstances affecting the subject of the arrangement. |
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the framework on undue influence, outlining the three main categories: actual undue influence (Class 1) and presumed undue influence (Class 2A and Class 2B). |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 953 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of duress, requiring proof of illegitimate pressure and compulsion of the victim's will. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation, including a false representation of fact, reliance by the plaintiff, and knowledge of falsity by the defendant. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | Unknown | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Affirmed the formulation of fraudulent misrepresentation elements as stated in Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee. |
| Panachand & Co (Pte) Ltd v Riko International Pte Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 311 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties should be bound by their pleadings and that it is impermissible to mount new and unpleaded cases. |
| Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another | Unknown | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that inconsistent cases run by a party can offend common sense. |
| Chandra Winata Lie v Citibank NA | Unknown | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 875 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that new cases raised should be rejected if they are inconsistent with originally-pleaded cases. |
| Pollmann, Christian Joachim v Ye Xianrong | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 229 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that new cases raised should be rejected if they are inconsistent with originally-pleaded cases. |
| OMG Holdings Pte Ltd v Pos Ad Sdn Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 231 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may permit an unpleaded point to be raised if no injustice or irreparable prejudice will be occasioned to the other party. |
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law permits departure from the general rule that parties are bound by their pleadings in limited circumstances, where no prejudice is caused to the other party or where it would be clearly unjust for the court not to do so. |
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 Family Arrangement
- DFA
- Draft Will
- Intestate Succession
- Material Fact
- Non-Disclosure
- Family Arrangement
- Executor
- Trustee
- Beneficiary
15.2 Keywords
- Deed of Family Arrangement
- Probate
- Intestate Succession
- Singapore
- Family Arrangement
- Will
- Estate
- Non-disclosure
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Probate Law
- Family Law
- Contract Law