Chye Hwa Luan v Do Allyn T: Striking Out Action Due to Improperly Sued Defendant in Personal Capacity

In Chye Hwa Luan and others v Do Allyn T, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application to strike out the plaintiffs' claim regarding a property dispute. The plaintiffs, Chye Hwa Luan, Chan Ah Chee, and Chan Le Eng Margaret, sued Do Allyn T in her personal capacity, seeking a declaration that the deceased, Chan Chong Leong, held his share of the property on trust for the first and second plaintiffs. The court, presided over by AR Wong Hee Jinn, allowed the defendant's application, dismissing the suit on the grounds that the defendant was improperly sued in her personal capacity and had no legal standing to defend the claim on behalf of the deceased's estate. The court found that the defendant had not extracted the grant of letters of administration, rendering her without the authority to act as the administratrix of the estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendant's application allowed; Suit dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out the plaintiffs' claim because the defendant was sued in her personal capacity instead of as administratrix of the estate.

1.7 Decision Date

30 July 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chye Hwa Luan	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Decruz Martin Francis of Shenton Law Practice LLC
Chan Ah Chee	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Decruz Martin Francis of Shenton Law Practice LLC
Chan Le Eng Margaret	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Decruz Martin Francis of Shenton Law Practice LLC
Do Allyn T	Defendant	Individual	Application Allowed	Won	Wah Hsien-Wen Terence of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Wong Hee Jinn	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Decruz Martin Francis	Shenton Law Practice LLC
Wah Hsien-Wen Terence	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

The first and second plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased, Mr Chan Chong Leong.
The third plaintiff is the sister of the Deceased.
The defendant is the Deceased’s widow.
The Deceased passed away in Shanghai, China, without a will.
The plaintiffs commenced the Suit against the defendant in her personal capacity.
The claim revolves around a property at 12 Tai Hwan Heights, Singapore 555367.
The defendant did not extract the grant of letters of administration.

5. Formal Citations

Chye Hwa Luan and othersvDo, Allyn T, Suit No 81 of 2022(Summons No 1260 of 2023), [2023] SGHCR 10

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-01-03	Chan Chong Leong passed away in Shanghai, China, without a will.
2018-10-01	Do Allyn T applied for a grant of letters of administration to the Deceased’s estate.
2018-10-23	Do Allyn T obtained a grant of letters of administration to the Deceased’s estate.
2021-09-17	The first plaintiff filed a caveat against the grant of letters of administration to the Deceased’s estate.
2021-09-20	The Caveat was served on the defendant’s then-counsel.
2021-10-06	The defendant’s then-counsel applied to discharge themselves from acting for the defendant in P 4656.
2022-01-28	The plaintiffs commenced the Suit against the defendant.
2023-04-18	The defendant filed her Memorandum of Appearance in the Suit.
2023-04-28	The defendant filed the present application vide HC/SUM 1260/2023 to strike out the entirety of the plaintiffs’ Statement of Claim.
2023-05-02	Counsel for the plaintiffs indicated that the defendant “is the administrator of the estate of Chan Chong Leong, deceased”.
2023-05-11	The parties filed their respective written submissions for the present application.
2023-05-15	Hearing before AR Wong Hee Jinn.
2023-07-31	AR Wong Hee Jinn delivered the decision.

7. Legal Issues

Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the application to strike out the pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
  - [2012] 2 SLR 352
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546
Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs should not be allowed to amend the Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
Legal Standing
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not have legal standing to defend the claim in the Suit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1995] 2 MLJ 287
  - [2015] 2 SLR 1085
  - [2023] SGHC 172
  - [2011] 3 SLR 320
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 869
  - [2022] 2 SLR 253
  - [1965–1967] SLR(R) 349
Grant of Letters of Administration
- Outcome: The court held that the extraction of the grant of letters of administration is the dispositive act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1916] 1 AC 603
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 159
  - [1936] MLJ 148
  - [1961] MLJ 89
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 362
  - [1995] 3 SLR(R) 822

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the Deceased held his share in the Property on trust for the first and second plaintiffs.
Order that the defendant, as administrator of the Deceased’s estate, transfer to the first and second plaintiffs the Deceased’s share in the Property within three months.
Order that the Registrar of the Supreme Court be empowered to execute, sign and indorse all necessary documents on behalf of the defendant should she fail to effect transfer of the Deceased’s share in the Property.

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Trust
Transfer of Property

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Probate Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
The Osprey	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of striking out should be invoked only in plain and obvious cases.
Gabriel Peter Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a reasonable cause of action.
Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 352	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will exercise its power to strike out where the basis of the claim is factually or legally flawed.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a legally unsustainable claim.
Abdul Razak Ahmad v Majlis Bandaraya Johor Bahru	High Court	Yes	[1995] 2 MLJ 287	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that there is no reasonable cause of action when an aggrieved party has no locus standi to bring an action.
Madan Mohan Singh v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2015] 2 SLR 1085	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application discloses no chance of success if the applicant is unable to establish the requisite locus standi.
Lian Chee Kek Buddhist Temple v Ong Ai Moi and others	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 172	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application discloses no chance of success if the applicant is unable to establish the requisite locus standi.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 320	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application discloses no chance of success if the applicant is unable to establish the requisite locus standi.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and another	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 869	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where a plaintiff is found to not have the requisite legal standing to maintain an action, the court will not hesitate to exercise its discretion to strike out the action.
Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that striking out is warranted where there is an absence of legal standing owing to a lack of authority.
United Investment and Finance Ltd v Tee Chin Yong and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1965–1967] SLR(R) 349	Singapore	Cited for the principle that striking out is warranted where there is an absence of legal standing owing to a lack of authority.
Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and another (Foo Jee Seng, intervener)	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 176	Singapore	Cited for the rationale underpinning the rule of clarifying the capacities in which parties are suing and being sued.
S M K R Meyappa Chetty v S N Supramanian Chetty	Privy Council	Yes	[1916] 1 AC 603	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an executor derives his title and authority from the will of his testator and not from any grant of probate, while an administrator derives title solely under his grant.
Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael (administrator of the estate of Lee Ching Miow, deceased)	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 159	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there is a distinction between the grant of the application for grant of letters of administration and the extraction of the sealed grant of letters of administration.
Chia Teck Liang v Tan Soo Khiang	High Court	Yes	[1936] MLJ 148	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an administrator cannot be sued in respect of a debt due by the deceased, until letters of administration have been granted under seal.
P Govindasamy Pillay & Sons Ltd v Lok Seng Chai and others	High Court	Yes	[1961] MLJ 89	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that it is only on extracting the grant of letters of administration that the petitioner can be said to be duly clothed with a representative character and to have acquired a title to the estate.
Singapore Gems Co v Personal representatives of the estate of Akber Ali Mohamed Bukardeem, deceased	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 362	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an administrator has not clothed himself with that status until he has extracted the grant.
Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 822	Singapore	Affirmed the decision in Singapore Gems Co v Personal representatives of the estate of Akber Ali Mohamed Bukardeem, deceased.
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 obtaining of proper letters of administration is not a mere formality or technicality but a rule conveying substantive rights and as such should not be easily overridden.
Maybank Singapore Limited v Personal representatives of the estate of Khoo Gek Hwa Christina, deceased	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHCR 7	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where a grant of probate or administration has not been made at the time the action is to be commenced, the action should be brought against the estate.
Actis Excalibur Ltd v KS Distribution Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHCR 11	Singapore	Cited regarding stare decisis.
Peter Low LLC v Higgins, Danial Patrick	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHCR 18	Singapore	Cited regarding stare decisis.
Founder Group (Hong Kong) Ltd (in liquidation) v Singapore JHC Co Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 159	Singapore	Cited regarding res judicata.
In re Tottenham	N/A	Yes	[1896] 1 Ch 628	N/A	Cited for the rule that the representative capacity of a defendant be reflected in the title of action in the Statement of Claim and not merely in the body thereof.
Chia Foon Sian v Lam Chew Fah	High Court	Yes	[1995] MLJ 203	Malaysia	The court declined to follow the approach in this case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19(1)(a) of the revoked Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 18 r 19(2) of the Rules
O 6 r 2(1)(d) of the Rules
Rules of Court 2021
O 4 rr 4(1), 4(2)(a)(ii) and 4(2)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021
O 15 r 6A(1) of the Rules
O 15 r 6A(4)(a) of the Rules
Rule 221 of the FJ Rules
Rule 208(1) of the FJ Rules
Rule 208(8) of the FJ Rules
Rule 208(2) of the FJ Rules
Rule 207 of the FJ Rules
Rules 239(3) and (5) of the FJ Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Probate and Administration Act 1934 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Trustees Act 1967 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Letters of Administration
Grant of Probate
Personal Capacity
Representative Capacity
Locus Standi
Statement of Claim
Striking Out
Caveat
Administrator
Administratrix
Estate
Intestate

15.2 Keywords

Striking Out
Letters of Administration
Legal Standing
Probate
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Grant of letters of administration	80
Civil Practice	75
Wills and Probate	60
Succession Law	40
Asset Protection	20
Bankruptcy	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Probate and Administration
Legal Standing
Striking Out