Tan Siew Kheng v The Personal Representative of Tan Siew Hiang (deceased)

Two sisters, Ms Tan Siew Hiang and Ms Tan Siew Cheng, each owned half of a house at No. 20 Hai Sing Road. Siew Hiang died in 2015 and Siew Cheng in 2022, so each estate held half the property. The claimant, their youngest sister Ms Tan Siew Kheng, aged 76, was the executor of Siew Cheng's will, under which she, another sister Sam Cheng (aged 82) and Siew Hiang's daughter Ms Teo Kian Kian were beneficiaries. Siew Hiang's children, Kian Kian and her brother Yong Kian, took her share. No grant of probate or administration had been sought for Siew Hiang's estate, and on 27 June 2023 the court appointed Kian Kian to represent it in these proceedings. She acted in person.

By Originating Application No 204 of 2023, the claimant asked for the property to be sold on the open market at or above its valuation of $2,400,000.00. Kian Kian and Yong Kian, who appeared to be living in the property, objected, and the defendant produced no valuation of her own. The claimant also raised two further points: whether s 35(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886, which requires court sanction for a sale by a personal representative more than six years after death, stopped Siew Hiang's side from dealing with the property; and whether the court could let one co-owner buy out another.

1. Whether it was necessary or expedient to order a sale of the property.
2. Whether s 35(2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886 affected the application.
3. Whether the court can order a co-owner to sell its share to another co-owner at valuation.

The court has power to order a sale under s 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 and the First Schedule. Applying the factors in Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another [2016] 3 SLR 1222, the judge found a clean break preferable: relations had broken down and the claimant and Sam Cheng were elderly. Partition was impractical, and the prejudice to Siew Cheng's beneficiaries from no sale outweighed the prejudice to the occupants, who could rehouse themselves with their share of the proceeds. A claimed promise to donate part of the proceeds to a temple was irrelevant, and there was no prior agreement on disposal.

Section 35(2) did not apply, because Siew Hiang's representative was not the one selling, and the claimant was selling within six years of Siew Cheng's death. The judge also questioned in passing whether the court-sanction requirement, traced back to an 1886 Straits Settlements ordinance, still serves any clear purpose.

On buy-outs, the judge distinguished a right of first refusal at the best obtainable price, which is acceptable, from forcing a co-owner to sell at valuation, which the court has no power to order because it would expropriate any shortfall from the open-market price. He agreed with Tan Chor Hong v Ng Cheng Hock [2019] SGHC 257 and respectfully disagreed with Sun Yanyuan v Ng Yit Beng [2023] 3 SLR 1727 to that extent. No buy-out order was needed here, as neither occupant wanted to buy and Kian Kian said she lacked the means.

Chua Lee Ming J allowed the application. He ordered the property sold on the open market at or above the valuation price of $2,400,000.00, with the proceeds divided between the two estates according to their shares and any outstanding property tax paid from the proceeds. Costs fixed at $7,500, including disbursements, were to be paid to the claimant from the sale proceeds.