Cheng Tze Tzuen v Dang Lan Anh

Mr Cheng Meng Koon married Ms Dang Lan Anh, a Vietnamese national, on 26 January 2011, after divorcing his first wife. He never told his family about the marriage and made no known provision for her. He died on 8 January 2012, and the family learned of the marriage only when the Insolvency and Public Trustee's Office wrote to say his wife was entitled to part of his CPF money. A newspaper notice failed to locate her. In 2024 the family was told by the immigration authority that she had been deported for immigration offences in 2011, and the son's uncle was told by the police that she had been arrested for vice activities before then. The deceased's estate included a 14% share in an HDB flat held with his sister, which the family said was held for his son.

The son, Mr Cheng Tze Tzuen, applied in Originating Application No 1057 of 2024 for declarations that the marriage was void as a sham or marriage of convenience and that the estate should go to the immediate family without the wife. She was served by substituted service and did not appear. Later, by letter, he also asked for orders letting him take out letters of administration without her renunciation, dispensing with a bond, and allowing distribution of the estate and CPF money without her.

1. Whether a marriage of convenience solemnised before 1 October 2016 can be declared void.
2. Whether the High Court should make orders on letters of administration and distribution of the estate excluding the wife.
3. Whether orders could be made over the deceased's CPF money.

The judge was prepared to accept on the unchallenged affidavit evidence that the marriage was one of convenience, but not the legal premise. Section 11A of the Women's Charter voids such marriages only if solemnised on or after 1 October 2016, and s 105, which lists the only grounds on which a marriage is void, was amended at the same time to refer to that date. Earlier High Court decisions had held that private motives do not invalidate a properly registered marriage. The judge respectfully disagreed with two later decisions that treated an undisclosed intention to enter a marriage of convenience as a lawful impediment invalidating the marriage licence; in her view this added a new ground to s 105 or extended the dates Parliament had fixed. Criminal penalties for sham marriages affect the parties, not the validity of the marriage, and any wider public policy was for Parliament, which had already marked out the period.

The further orders were also misconceived. Probate matters belong to the Family Justice Courts. As spouse, the wife had priority to administer the estate and a half share under the Intestate Succession Act, but the son could issue a citation; her failure to respond would count as renunciation, leaving him next entitled. As administrator he could then seek court directions on her entitlement, where the circumstances of the marriage could be examined and public policy might be weighed within the court's discretion. The judge noted that a Benjamin order allowing distribution on the footing that a missing beneficiary cannot be found must be sought by an administrator, and that it does not destroy that beneficiary's rights. CPF money falls outside the estate, and there was no evidence of recent dealings with the Public Trustee or the CPF Board.

Valerie Thean J declined to grant the declaration that the marriage was void and made no order on the application, leaving the son to pursue letters of administration and directions in the Family Justice Courts, and to deal with the Public Trustee or CPF Board over the CPF money. The son has appealed.