Lim Julian Frederick Yu v Lim Peng On & Anor [2024] SGHC 53

Outcomes: Claim Dismissed.

Facts

1          The claimant, the Testator’s grandson, argues that he is a qualifying beneficiary under the Testator’s will dated 9 June 1992 (“the Will”) read with the Testator’s codicil dated 20 October 1992 (“the Codicil”). The Will bequeathed 20% of the estate to all surviving grandsons born of the Testator’s sons. The Codicil further provided that ‘surviving grandsons’ does not include grandsons who are no longer in the custody, care and control of the Testator’s sons.

Court’s Decision:

2          The armchair principle, or a survey of the prevailing circumstances known to the Testator, is an intrinsic part of the exercise of interpretation. The identity and circumstances of the person making a statement are inherent to our understanding of what they are saying by that statement. However, the armchair principle does not mandate a factual inquiry into what the Testator’s real intention might have been, separate from the words used, nor does it in any way permit the substitution of a speculated intention for the expressed intention.: at [49].

3          The testamentary intention expressed in the Grandson Gift Clause was for the class of beneficiaries to include existing grandsons born before the Testator’s death (i.e., “surviving grandsons”) and future grandsons born within 21 years after the Testator’s death.: at [66] and [70].

4         The natural meaning of the word “surviving” in the context of this clause is in relation to the Testator, meaning surviving him. This happened upon his death. This interpretation also coheres with the ambulatory nature of a will, which should be construed to speak and take effect as if it had been executed immediately before a testator’s death, unless a contrary intention appears in the will (see s 19, Wills Act 1838).: at [69].

5          A parent can give up “custody” or “care and control” by agreement with the other parent. These matters are often dealt with in formal separation deeds, but there is no reason why they may not equally be dealt with by an oral agreement between parents or even impliedly by their conduct.: at [78].

6          Property rights cannot be left perpetually in suspended animation or in limbo. There must be a definite date when a proprietary entitlement vests. Logically, that date must be when the complete class of qualifying beneficiaries can be drawn-up to ascertain the aliquot share of each beneficiary.: at [86].

The full text of the decision can be found here. 

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.