[2014] SGHC 17

“The Company relied on the doctrine of laches and cited the cases of Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee [2007] SGHC 19 (“Tan Kow Quee”) and Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon [2014] SGHC 17 (“Quek Hung Heong”) as precedents.”

“Valley Apartment to Jee Soon, Lah Moi and Yak Ping shows that Mother did not think that the money used to pay for Valley Apartment belonged to Serene. He also relies on Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon [2014] SGHC 17 (“Quek Hung Heong”) that the proper inference to draw is that the person making the will was an outright”

“o Mother’s Will in particular, as the Judge stated (at [46] of the Judgment), the case of Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others and another suit [2014] SGHC 17 relied on by the appellants does not set out any presumption or rule that the proper inference to draw fr”

“fend against Eugene’s assertions. I find this to be similar to the High Court decision of Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others and another suit [2014] SGHC 17 (at [129]), where the court explained the significance of the death of key witnesses:”

“The Company relies on Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others and another suit [2014] SGHC 17 (“Quek Hung Heong”) to argue that the doctrine of laches should apply in the present case. In Quek Hung Heong, the plaintiff sought to lay claim to the entire beneficial int”