[2015] SGHC 229

“e applicable, the Plaintiff argued that he fell within “exceptions” thereto, as set out in Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others [2015] SGHC 229 (“Tan Bee Hoon”). Further, and in any event, based on all the circumstances, the Plaintiff argued that h”

“tial to the upkeep of the property would be claimable, as I have noted in my earlier decision in Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and anor v Quek Hung Heong and Ors [2015] SGHC 229. However, the various claims relate not just to maintenance of the property but to the acquisition – suc”

“The view that “[i]dentity of parties is not viewed narrowly” is also echoed at [40] of Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others [2015] SGHC 229. In a similar vein, this Court also concluded in Goh Nellie at [33] that, notwithstanding the fact that the”

“d cooperate to partition because the relationship had broken down between the parties (see Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others [2015] SGHC 229 at [73]–[78]; Sumoi Paramesvaeri v Fleury, Jeffrey Gerard and another [2016] 5 SLR 302 (“Sumoi”) at [97]”

“As the High Court in Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others [2015] SGHC 229 at [21] observed, cases in which the extended doctrine were held not to apply can generally be seen as involving reasonable grounds for not having raised the issue earlier. T”