Lim Heng How v Lim Meu Beo: Estate Administration, Breach of Duty, and Unjust Enrichment
In Lim Heng How v Lim Meu Beo, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between siblings, Lim Heng How (Plaintiff) and Lim Meu Beo (Defendant), concerning the estates of their late mother, Mdm Yap, and late sister, Wendy. The Plaintiff, acting as co-executor of Mdm Yap's estate, beneficiary of Wendy's estate, and deputy for their sister ML, brought claims against the Defendant for breach of duty as executrix and administratrix. The Defendant counterclaimed against the Plaintiff, Mdm Yap's estate, and ML. The court allowed ML's claim against the Defendant for $11,575.03 with interest, and the Defendant's claim against Mdm Yap's estate for expenses and commission, dismissing the remaining claims and counterclaims.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Judgment for Defendant in part; Counterclaims dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Probate
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving claims of breach of duty as executrix, delay in estate distribution, and unjust enrichment related to family assets.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Heng How | Plaintiff, Executor, Beneficiary, Deputy | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Meu Beo | Defendant, Executrix, Administratrix | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Mdm Yap's estate | Other | Trust | Counterclaim Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| ML | Beneficiary | Individual | Claim Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff and Defendant are siblings involved in a dispute over their late mother's and sister's estates.
- Mdm Yap passed away in 1995, leaving a will that bequeathed her assets to her children.
- The Defendant was accused of unilaterally managing Mdm Yap's estate assets and monies.
- The Clementi Flat was sold in 2014 after delays, leading to disputes over the purchase of a new flat for ML.
- The Defendant purchased the West Coast Flat in ML's name in 2008.
- The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendant wrongfully repaid a loan from Mdm Yap's estate monies.
- The Defendant commingled Mdm Yap's estate monies with Wendy's estate monies and her personal monies.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Heng How v Lim Meu Beo, Suit No 674 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 49
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mdm Yap passed away | |
| Probate obtained for Mdm Yap's estate | |
| Mdm Yap's OCBC Account opened | |
| Mdm Yap's OCBC Account closed | |
| Lim Heng How moved into Clementi Flat | |
| Wendy died intestate | |
| Lim Heng How received $10,000 from Wendy’s estate | |
| Lim Heng How received $20,000 from Wendy’s estate | |
| Lim Heng How received $10,000 from Wendy’s estate | |
| Letters of administration issued for Wendy's estate | |
| Lim Heng How took a $4,000 loan from Lim Meu Beo | |
| West Coast Flat purchased in ML's name | |
| KL RHB Account closed | |
| Application for CPF Annuity Plan made on ML's behalf | |
| Personal protection order obtained against Lim Heng How | |
| OS 311 resolved by consent | |
| Clementi Flat sold | |
| Suit commenced | |
| 2018 Consent Order issued | |
| New flat purchased for ML | |
| West Coast Flat sold |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had breached some duties as Executrix but did not remove her from the position.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Commingling of estate funds
- Failure to keep proper accounts
- Delay in distribution of assets
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant was unjustly enriched by withdrawing monies from ML's account without her consent and ordered the Defendant to pay $11,575.03 to ML.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Incapacity
- Withdrawal of monies without consent
- Delay in Distribution of Assets
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had delayed in distributing ML's share of the KL Property Proceeds but disallowed the claim for interest due to lack of evidence of loss.
- Category: Substantive
- Commission for Executor
- Outcome: The court allowed a commission of $20,000 to the Defendant pursuant to s 66 of the PAA.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Breach of Duty
- Removal of Executor/Executrix
- Monetary Compensation
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Estate Administration
- Trust Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 339 | Singapore | Cited for the duty of trustees and executors to keep accounts, be ready with accounts, and allow beneficiaries to inspect them. |
| Blogg v Johnson | Court of Chancery | Yes | (1867) LR 2 CH App 255 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an executor or trustee will be made to pay interest for unnecessarily retaining money that should have been invested or paid over to the person entitled to it. |
| Re Allen (deceased); Lewis and another v Vincent and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 10 ITELR 506 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that a trustee of an estate is liable to pay interests on an unjustified delay in the distribution of trust assets. |
| Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd and another appeal v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 199 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in proving entitlement to damages, the fact of damage and its amount must be shown. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the proof of damage requires a flexible approach, with different occasions calling for different evidence with regard to certainty of proof. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that conversion only protects interest in chattels or things that can be possessed. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to find a claim in unjust enrichment, the elements must be shown. |
| Sun Jin Engineering Pte Ltd v Hwang Jae Woo | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a balance has to be struck between instilling procedural discipline in civil litigation and permitting parties to present the substantive merits of their case notwithstanding a procedural irregularity. |
| Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Aesthetic Medical Partners Pte Ltd and other appeals and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 7 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the purpose of pleadings is to ensure that each party was aware of the respective arguments against it and that neither was therefore taken by surprise. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the approach in resolving a property dispute involving unequal contributions towards the purchase price. |
| Ong Teck Soon (executor of the estate of Ong Kim Nang, deceased) v Ong Teck Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 819 | Singapore | Cited regarding pre-judgment interest. |
| Jigarlal Kantilal Doshi v Damayanti Kantilal Doshi (executrix of the estate of Kantilal Prabhulal Doshi, deceased) and another | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 290 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that probate or letters of administration may be revoked or amended for any sufficient cause. |
| Shiraz Abidally Husain and another (executors of the estate of Abidally Abdul Husain, deceased) v Husain Safdar Abidally and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 11 | Singapore | Cited for the factors to be considered in deciding the quantum of award under s 66 of the PAA. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 66 | Singapore |
| Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 2000 Rev Ed) s 32 | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 12(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Executrix
- Executor
- Estate
- Beneficiary
- Commingling
- Probate
- Letters of Administration
- KL Property Proceeds
- Clementi Flat
- West Coast Flat
- Deputy
- Mental Incapacity
15.2 Keywords
- Estate Administration
- Breach of Duty
- Unjust Enrichment
- Probate
- Trust
- Fiduciary Duty
- Commingling of Funds
- Singapore Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Estate Administration | 95 |
| Succession Law | 60 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 40 |
| Trust Law | 40 |
| Property Law | 20 |
| Contract Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Probate Law
- Trusts
- Family Law
- Civil Procedure