Ho Dat Khoon v Chan Wai Leen, as the Administratrix of the estate of Wong Ching Fong, deceased, and in her personal capacity and another

Ho Dat Khoon, the plaintiff, was the registered owner since 1970 of a private landed home bought by her father, valued on one estimate at between $7.5m and $7.8m; it was her only property. On 2 December 2016, when she was elderly and working at a flower shop, she signed an instrument transferring the property "BY WAY OF GIFT" to her grandniece Wong Cai Juan (the second defendant), and on the same day executed a will leaving the property to the second defendant on her death. The transfer was registered in 2017. The second defendant's mother, Chan Wai Leen (the first defendant), is the administratrix of her late husband's estate.

In 2020 the plaintiff appointed two children of her late brother as her attorneys, and Suit No 1095 of 2020 followed. The plaintiff said she had not intended a lifetime gift and sought to set the transfer aside for lack of consideration, mistake, unconscionability and undue influence, as well as restitution for unjust enrichment, rectification of the land register and damages for conspiracy. She also claimed $13,411.41 withdrawn from a joint bank account, which the first defendant did not contest. The defendants said she had capacity and independent legal advice, that she held the property on trust for her late sister's family, and that the attorneys were driving the case. They counterclaimed for expenses on the basis of proprietary estoppel.

1. Whether the plaintiff lacked mental capacity when she executed the transfer.
2. Whether the transfer should be set aside for mistake or on the other grounds pleaded, and the land register rectified.
3. Whether the claims in conspiracy and unjust enrichment, and the defendants' counterclaim in proprietary estoppel, succeeded.
4. What costs and disbursements should be awarded.

The plaintiff had capacity. Around the time of the transfer she gave informed consent to hospital procedures, a December 2016 review recorded her as rational, later cognitive tests were largely normal, and she followed questions well at trial.

She was, however, mistaken about what she signed. Executing a will leaving the property to the second defendant on the same day made no sense if she meant an immediate gift. Her lawyer's explanations, given in Cantonese and Mandarin and focused on stamp duty, included telling her that signing did not mean ownership was taken away, and likely left her thinking the gift would take effect on death. Inconsistencies in her memory of minor details more than five years later did not undermine her consistent account. The alleged trust for her sister's family was unsupported: the transfer benefited only one member, the earlier wills pointed to testamentary gifts, and occupation and payment of outgoings did not show beneficial ownership. Applying BOM v BOK, the mistake as to the legal character of the transaction was causative and so grave, stripping her of her only major asset, that refusing relief would be unconscionable. The second defendant was privy to the mistake, so the register could be rectified under s 160 of the Land Titles Act.

The other vitiating factors failed: she had donative intent, there was no evidence of actual or presumed undue influence, and she was not so infirm as to found unconscionability. Conspiracy failed for want of an intention to injure her; the defendants at most intended to benefit the second defendant. Singapore law leans against proprietary remedies for unjust enrichment. The counterclaim failed because occupation is not a representation of ownership and the expenses were not proved. On costs, judgment beat the defendants' offer to settle once interest was counted, and no reduction for the failed grounds was warranted.

Aedit Abdullah J allowed the plaintiff's claim in part. He set the transfer aside for mistake and ordered the cancellation of its registration and rectification of the land register to reflect the plaintiff's continued ownership. He entered judgment for $13,411 with interest at 5.33% per annum, dismissed the conspiracy and unjust enrichment claims, declined a trust declaration as unnecessary, and dismissed the counterclaim in its entirety. The defendants were ordered to pay costs of $360,000 and disbursements of $123,019.17, with GST at 8% and interest.