Skip to content
Grounds publishedDecided 30 Jun 2003
Contents

High Court

Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa (also known as Lim Le Hoa and Lily Arief Husni) and Others

Feedback & support

[2003] SGHC 143Case no. OS 939/1991, INQ 1/20028 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. [1] On 13 June 2003, I made the following orders in the Plaintiff’s favour against the First Defendant:

  2. (2) It is declared that the Plaintiff shall be entitled to a one-twelfth share of the Deceased’s interest in the piece of land in Cibenong, a one-twelfth share of the Deceased’s interest in the jute plantation in Lampung and a one-twelfth share of the Deceased’s interest in a bank account in the United States of America.

  3. [2] The background to this case and the reasons for my decision are set out in the written judgment that I delivered on 13 June 2003 in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2003] SGHC 126.

  4. [7] In Tullio v Maoro [1994] 2 SLR 489, the Court of Appeal held that:

  5. [8] These principles are mirrored in Order 59 rule 6A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Ed), which came into operation on 15 December 2001. Order 59 rule 6A states:

  6. [22] SIC 600194/2002 was the Second Defendant’s application for interim payments amounting to a total of $2,025,239.31 to be made by the First Defendant to him as a beneficiary. SIC 600595/2002 was the Second Defendant’s application for an interim payment of a sum of $300,000 to be made by the First Defendant to him as a co-administrator and trustee of the Deceased’s estate. SIC 601161/2002 was the Plaintiff’s application for an interim payment of a sum of $1,200,000 to be made by the First Defendant to the Plaintiff. All three applications were disallowed by the court.

  7. [32] At paragraph 356 of the written judgment in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2003] SGHC 126, I summarised the full extent of the Deceased’s estate as follows:

  8. [33] Applying the exchange rates set out at paragraphs 373 and 374 of that judgment, the estate’s realised assets would have a total value of $27,861,242.91, the breakdown of which is as follows:

  9. [34] Item 34 of Appendix B to the Rules of Court provides that where an account is taken of an administrator or other person liable to account, the court fee payable is $50 when the amount found to have been received without deducting any payment shall not exceed $1,000. Item 35 of the same Appendix states that where such amount shall exceed $1,000, the court fee payable would be $5 for every $500 or fraction of $500. Items 34 and 35 of Appendix B required the court fees to be stamped on the Registrar’s Certificate. As the amount received by the First Defendant, as an administrator of the estate, amounted to $27,861,242.91, the total court fees payable amounted to $278,655.