WDT v WDS

Facts

The deceased had four children, all beneficiaries under her will. The appellant, WDT, was her youngest daughter and lived with her in Toronto, caring for her after a serious stroke in January 2015. In 2013 WongPartnership LLP had prepared the deceased's will and a deed of gift of S$2.5m to the appellant, after a psychiatrist assessed her mental capacity.

In June 2016 a close friend, B, told WongPartnership that the deceased wished to give the appellant a further US$1.5m. The firm advised a mental capacity assessment before a deed of gift was signed. On 14 September 2016 the deceased signed a letter prepared by B instructing her lawyers and bankers to make the transfers "now", but B kept the letter and only gave it to the appellant after the death. The deceased died in New York before the assessment and deed could be done.

The executor, WDS, obtained a declaration in WDS v WDT [2022] SGHCF 12 that the appellant had no valid claim for US$1.5m as a creditor of the estate. The appellant appealed in Civil Appeal No 55 of 2022 and applied in Summonses Nos 38 and 47 of 2022 to adduce further evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the appellant should be allowed to adduce new evidence of her knowledge of the gift and of a power of attorney over the deceased's bank account.
2. Whether the deceased had done all that was necessary and within her power to complete the gift of US$1.5m.
3. Whether the successful executor should have the costs of the appeal from the appellant.

Holding

The Appellate Division dismissed both applications to adduce further evidence and dismissed the appeal. It ordered the appellant to pay costs of $25,000, inclusive of disbursements, for the appeal and the applications.

Reasoning

On the new evidence, the court applied Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 and found the material would not have an important influence on the appeal. The only question was whether the deceased had done everything needed to perfect the gift; the appellant's knowledge of her mother's intention did not bear on that. The power of attorney, given in April 2015 and appearing to respond to the deceased's health, let the appellant act for her mother but not pay herself, was not given to effect the gift, and was never used: the appellant signed no cheque or withdrawal form. The court did not need to decide the other limbs of the test.

On the gift, the appellant did not challenge the Judge's legal principles. The court agreed that the rule in Re Rose was not satisfied. B never passed the letter to the bankers or lawyers, and the plan throughout, as in 2013 and 2014, was for the deceased's capacity to be certified and a deed of gift executed so the gift could not be challenged by the appellant's siblings. That had not happened when she died, and intention alone is not enough.

On costs, the respondent had not sought costs below, but there was no reason to deny the successful party costs on appeal, given the appellant's position was adverse to the estate. The matter was compact and not complex.

From the judgment