Elderly woman wins case to cancel transfer of $7.8m shophouse; lawyer’s conduct under scrutiny
Source: Straits Times
Article Date: 01 Sep 2024
Author: Selina Lum
The Emerald Hill property was bought by Madam Ho Dat Khoon's father in 1970 and registered in her name.
An 84-year-old woman who signed away an Emerald Hill shophouse to her grandniece eight years ago has won a court battle to cancel the transfer and regain ownership of the property.
The shophouse, estimated to be worth up to $7.8 million, is the only property Madam Ho Dat Khoon has in her name.
The Appellate Division of the High Court, which ruled in Madam Ho’s favour, has also expressed concern over the conduct of the lawyer who had acted for her in 2016.
The court has referred the conduct of Mr David Liew to the Law Society of Singapore, for an inquiry into whether he had acted in Madam Ho’s best interest in the entire process leading to the transfer.
In written grounds of decision on Aug 28, the court said: “We were of the view that the plaintiff did not understand the nature and effect of the transfer. In particular, Mr Liew’s conduct in acting for the plaintiff caused us concern as to whether Mr Liew had acted in the best interest of the plaintiff.”
The court comprised Justices Woo Bih Li, Kannan Ramesh and Philip Jeyaretnam.
The shophouse was purchased by Madam Ho’s father, Mr Ho Kwang Ming, and registered in her name in 1970. Mr Ho died that year at the age of 71. He had five other children apart from Madam Ho.
On Dec 2, 2016, when Madam Ho was 76 years old, she signed a will leaving the shophouse to her grandniece, Ms Wong Cai Juan. On the same day, Madam Ho also signed a document to transfer the property to Ms Wong. The transfer was registered in 2017.
Ms Wong is the daughter of Madam Ho’s nephew, Mr Alan Wong, and his wife, Madam Chan Wai Leen. Mr Alan Wong’s mother was Madam Ho’s sister. He died in 2015.
On April 30, 2020, two children of another of Madam Ho’s siblings were granted power of attorney to act on her behalf. Mr Ho Chiuen Sheey and Ms Nicola Ho – whose father was Madam Ho’s brother – were given powers to take legal action in relation to the property.
A High Court suit was filed on Nov 13, 2020, against Madam Chan and Ms Wong.
The defendants had argued that the property was a gift, and that it was to be held in trust for the family of Madam Ho’s sister Ho Tat Noor, who is Mr Wong’s mother.
The suit claimed that the transfer should be invalidated, as Madam Ho did not intend to give the property to Ms Chan within her lifetime. It did not seek to invalidate the will.
The defendants argued that Madam Ho had always intended to give the property to her sister’s family.
In November 2023, a High Court judge concluded that when Madam Ho signed the transfer document, she had mistakenly believed that she was bequeathing the property to Ms Wong, and did not understand it meant she would lose ownership of the property during her lifetime.
Justice Aedit Abdullah ordered the cancellation of the registration of the transfer as well as the rectification of the land register to reflect Madam Ho as the property owner.
The judge also ordered Madam Chan and Ms Wong to pay Madam Ho $360,000 to cover her legal costs and $123,019.17 in disbursements.
Madam Chan and Ms Wong then appealed. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the defendants to pay a further $52,000 in costs to Madam Ho.
In its written grounds, the court said it had doubts whether Mr Liew had properly taken Madam Ho’s instructions in relation to the will and the transfer. Madam Chan was the one who contacted Mr Liew’s office, the court noted.
Mr Liew then purportedly spoke to Madam Ho on the phone in a mixture of Cantonese and Mandarin. He later prepared a draft will, which Madam Chan collected from his office.
Mr Liew was then told by his secretary that Madam Ho had approved the draft. He did not confirm this with Madam Ho in person or over the phone.
On Dec 2, 2016, Mr Liew met Madam Ho near the flower shop where she worked. He said he went through the documents with her before she signed them. There was no attendance note of this meeting.
The court said at no point in time did Mr Liew ascertain with Madam Ho whether she had other relatives and why she was giving the property only to Ms Wong.
“Neither did he advise her on the prudence of such a course of action and the likelihood or possibility that it might invite litigation from other relatives,” said the court.
Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.
1798