WPA v WPB and others

[2] The family business was originally built up by the patriarch (“WKM”), who died in 1999, leaving parts of his estate to each of the three sons, with WPA receiving a 2.5% share, WPC receiving a 20% share, and WPD receiving a 20% share. The bulk of his estate was left to his widow, YLL, who received a 57.5% share.

[6] HCF/SUM 143/2023 was an application for specific discovery of those assets that WPC jointly holds with the Estate. In particular, the plaintiff asks for any and all documents related to the following extract of WPC’s pleading:

[7] The plaintiff says that it was common ground that the patriarch had invested in commercial and retail properties in China prior to his death (the “China Property Interests”) and that YLL had inherited a share of those interests upon WKM’s death. Hence, the requested documents have direct relevance to WPA’s claims concerning the China Property Interests — in the sense that:

(a) the Estate will be prejudiced by WPC continuing as executor while holding joint property with the Estate, and

(b) that the Executors have been tardy in the conduct of their duties, insofar as WPC already having knowledge of the Estate’s assets.

[8] WPC disagrees and says that the documents sought are not relevant to the present action. According to WPC, since the shares in the Hong Kong company were given by WKM to him in or around 1993, before his death in 1999, the shares belong to WPC solely, and did not form part of WKM’s estate — and therefore did not pass on to YLL and her Estate.

[9] It is trite that the two elements of specific discovery are that of relevance and necessity (EQ Capital Investments Ltd v Sunbreeze Group Investments Ltd and others [2017] SGHCR 15 at [46(c)]; UMCI Ltd v Tokio Marine & Fire Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others [2006] 4 SLR(R) 95 at [79]). In the present case, I am not persuaded by the plaintiff that the requested documents are relevant. I accept WPC’s affidavit of 6 June 2023, that the plaintiff had not raised any issue regarding the China Property Interests at the time of WKM’s death — nor during the administration of WKM’s estate, when he had the knowledge of said China Property Interests at that material time. It was also material that the matriarch, YLL, did not dispute the ownership of these shares, and did not include them in WKM’s Schedule of Assets — there is no evidence that YLL claimed any portion of the China Property Interests as hers. If YLL had “inherited a share in the China Property Interests, being a beneficiary of 57.5% of his estate”, one would expect her to have taken steps to transfer the assets to herself — given YLL’s status as the sole executor and trustee of WKM’s estate, as well as her being a beneficiary of the alleged China Property Interests. YLL’s inaction in this regard supports WPC’s position that the China Property Interests did not form part of WKM’s estate.

[10] Given the passage of time and the fact that a Committee of Persons had been appointed to manage YLL’s affairs sometime in 2007, it seems to me that if YLL had owned assets jointly with WPC, such as the China Property Interests, the Committee of Persons would have taken the necessary action. This would be in line with their challenge to WPC in the 2006 Australian Proceedings, or when they applied for the Committee of Persons for YLL. In connection with the China Property Interests, this would be especially so as the plaintiff himself had pointed out — that A appears to think that WPC held a number of joint assets with YLL, and A was at the material time a member of the Committee of Persons.

[11] In any event, having been a member of the Committee of Persons himself in 2007, and having had access to A’s affidavit at the material time it was filed — it is too late to complain that there may have been issues with YLL’s inheritance from WKM’s estate without sound reasons — and there are none. If the plaintiff was unhappy with how YLL’s inheritance from WKM’s estate was handled, he ought to have acted much earlier, as part of the Committee of Persons.

[12] The basis of the plaintiff’s request for specific discovery was the allegation that WPC and YLL’s estate jointly owned the China Property Interests — so that the documents pertaining to the China Property Interests may become relevant to the present action. Given that I see no proper basis for the plaintiff to make such an allegation — and in fact, the situation appears to be quite different from the plaintiff’s version of events, the documents requested by the plaintiff would not be relevant for the purposes of the present suit. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal and uphold the AR’s orders below.