Adeline Toh Tun Li v Central Provident Fund Board and another

Mr Toh Kim Hiang died on 4 January 2022. His only child, Ms Adeline Toh, was the applicant. The first respondent was the Central Provident Fund Board; the second respondent, Ms Yee Swee Yong, was his ex-wife and Ms Toh's estranged mother, from whom he was divorced on 26 February 1985 and who was the nominee under his existing CPF nomination.

At his eightieth birthday in November 2021, Mr Toh said he believed his nomination of Ms Yee had lapsed on the divorce; his son-in-law, Mr Ng, told him a fresh nomination was needed. On 22 November 2021 and again on 30 November 2021 Mr Toh submitted online nominations of Ms Toh. Each time Mr Ng completed his attestation as first witness, but Mr Ng's sister, Ms Ng, did not complete hers, and the CPF Board treated the nomination as unsuccessful. It later emerged that Mr Toh had keyed in the NRIC number of Mr Ng's mother instead of Ms Ng's. In Originating Summons No 197 of 2022 Ms Toh sought a declaration that the second submission was a valid nomination and an order that the monies be paid to her. Ms Yee was served by substituted service and did not appear.

1. Whether Mr Toh intended Ms Toh to be the beneficiary of his CPF monies
2. Whether a nomination that was not attested by two witnesses as required by r 2(2) of the CPF (Nominations) Rules is invalid
3. Whether Mr Ng's help in making the nomination and contacting the witness undermined its authenticity

On intention, Mr Toh and Ms Yee had lived as strangers for decades, so it would be highly unusual for him to want his CPF monies to go to her rather than his only daughter. He had twice tried to nominate Ms Toh, and his will leaving his property to her corroborated that intention.

On validity, the court noted that, unlike the Wills Act, which declares a will invalid unless properly executed, the CPF Act and Rules say nothing about the effect of non-compliance with the attestation rule. The rule exists to prevent fraud, and Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board and others [2005] 2 SLR(R) 594 showed that some laxity is allowed where the breach is minor and no fraud occurred. The regime's purpose is to give effect to a member's wishes and to protect the Board from disputes, and it should not be used to cause injustice.

The CPF Board argued that Mr Ng should not have made the nomination or relayed the request to Ms Ng. The court saw nothing wrong in principle with Mr Ng helping his father-in-law, who had signed a letter of authority for him; Ms Ng's statutory declaration and affidavit confirmed she agreed to witness and did witness the signatures. There was no sign of fraud. The Board was nonetheless justified in refusing payment without a court order, which is why it bore no costs. The judge also observed that marriage revokes a nomination but divorce does not, a point the Board might consider.

Lee Seiu Kin J granted the application. He declared that Mr Toh had nominated Ms Toh as the sole beneficiary of his CPF monies by the online nomination of 30 November 2021, and ordered the CPF Board to release the monies to her. No order was made as to costs.