Scribd Logo
Importer

Bienvenue sur Scribd !

  • Lim Kim Hua V Ho Chui Lan (Summary)

    Transféré par

    laiyyeen
    1K vues2 pages
    This case involved a dispute over the ownership of a shophouse between the plaintiff and two defendants. The plaintiff had executed multiple wills over the years devising the shophouse to different parties. The court found that the first defendant, who the plaintiff was dependent on, had exerted undue influence over the plaintiff and actively concealed information regarding transfers of the property. The court ruled the memorandum of transfer to the first defendant was null and void due to fraud and undue influence. However, the claims against the second defendant were not successful.

    Description originale:

    Titre original

    Lim Kim Hua v Ho Chui Lan (Summary)

    Copyright

    © Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

    Formats disponibles

    DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd

    Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

    Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

    Signaler ce document
    This case involved a dispute over the ownership of a shophouse between the plaintiff and two defendants. The plaintiff had executed multiple wills over the years devising the shophouse to different parties. The court found that the first defendant, who the plaintiff was dependent on, had exerted undue influence over the plaintiff and actively concealed information regarding transfers of the property. The court ruled the memorandum of transfer to the first defendant was null and void due to fraud and undue influence. However, the claims against the second defendant were not successful.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    1K vues2 pages

    Lim Kim Hua V Ho Chui Lan (Summary)

    Transféré par

    laiyyeen
    This case involved a dispute over the ownership of a shophouse between the plaintiff and two defendants. The plaintiff had executed multiple wills over the years devising the shophouse to different parties. The court found that the first defendant, who the plaintiff was dependent on, had exerted undue influence over the plaintiff and actively concealed information regarding transfers of the property. The court ruled the memorandum of transfer to the first defendant was null and void due to fraud and undue influence. However, the claims against the second defendant were not successful.

    Droits d'auteur :

    Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)
    Téléchargez comme DOC, PDF, TXT ou lisez en ligne sur Scribd
    Signaler comme contenu inapproprié
    sur 2

    LIM KIM HUA V HO CHUI LAN & ANOR [1996] 2 CLJ 299

    FACT: On 6 October 1980, the plaintiff who was suffering from some form of senility and very much independent on the 1 st D in managing the affairs of the shophouse had executed a will devising and the shophouse to 4 of her grandchildren including to the 2nd defendant. However, on 10 March 1983 the plaintiff executed another will revoking the 1980 will to the same 4 grandchildren but in different proportions. On 30 December 1895, she executed another memorandum of transfer transferring her remaining share of the shophouse to the 1st defendant. In this suit, the plaintiff has sought the declaration that the two memoranda of transfer are null and void. The main grounds relied on by the plaintiff are: (a)fraud/dishonesty; and (b) undue influence on the part of the defendants. ISSUES:

    1) Whether fraud/dishonesty is established 2) Whether the will made because of undue influence
    JUDGMENT:

    1) The 1st D being fully aware of the 1983 will and the subsequent transfer of 1/2 share of the shophouse to
    her son had deliberately withheld such vital information from the P which she was duty bound to disclose having regard to the close relationship between them and the trust and confidence reposed in her by the P at all material times. So, there was active concealment of a material fact by the 1st D. This is a clear manifestation of dishonest conduct. In the circumstances, fraud has been established against the 1st D. The validity of the memorandum of transfer is null and void.

    1) There is, sufficient evidence to show the existence of a special relationship between the P and the 1st D. the
    P was living with the 1st D who provided her with food and accommodation; that the 1 st Dt was entrusted by the P to manage the affairs of the shophouse. The plaintiff was very much dependent on the 1st D in both her physical and financial needs. This was so because she was getting on in age and also illiterate. Therefore, the memorandum of transfer was executed by the P in favour of the 1 st D. On the evidence as a whole, there was undue influence exerted by the 1st D upon the P as regards the execution of the memorandum of transfer at all material times. The memorandum of transfer is therefore null and void.

    Succeeded in her claims to the 1st D, but not against to the 2nd D

    5th Feb 2010

    Vous aimerez peut-être aussi