Judge throws out man's 'disgraceful' lawsuit against sisters | The New Paper

Judge throws out man's 'disgraceful' lawsuit against sisters

This article is more than 12 months old

Plaintiff, who took almost $2.6m from firm for his own use, wanted sisters to pay half of $740k owed to bank

Two sisters were content to let "sleeping dogs lie" after they discovered that their brother had used funds from the family business for his own family's expenses.

However, they decided to bring the matter to light after his son, on his behalf, decided to sue them and their late mother's estate over debts owed by the business to a bank.

The High Court has dismissed the lawsuit against Ms Lee Gin Hong and Ms Lee Gim Moi, holding that their brother, Mr Lee Ker Min, ought to account for sums he had withdrawn for his personal use.

According to the judgment dated last Thursday, the siblings' father - Mr Lee Kim Eng - started Lee Huat Company in 1958.

The business, which is a retailer of motorcycles, motor scooters and related accessories as well as a workshop, operates at a shophouse in Upper Bukit Timah Road.

In 1975, the younger Mr Lee was appointed a partner in the business. His mother, Madam Ng Ang Chum, was also registered as a partner after the elder Mr Lee died in 1981.

In July 2014, Mr Lee Ker Min suffered a stroke that incapacitated him, and the business was subsequently managed by his second son, Mr Jeffrey Lee Kai Leong.

Madam Ng died in December that year, and her daughters - Ms Lee Gin Hong and Ms Lee Gim Moi - became executors of her estate.

Tensions later arose between the sisters and their brother's family over the repayment of the partnership's overdraft facility with United Overseas Bank obtained in 2000.

Mr Lee sued his sisters through his eldest son, Mr Roland Lee Kai Teck, seeking a declaration from the court that the partnership had a debt of $740,214 to the bank at the time of Madam Ng's death and that his sisters had to pay half of it as executors of their mother's estate.


Among other claims, he said that his sisters had acted in bad faith in administering their mother's estate.

Mr Roland Lee said in an affidavit that Madam Ng was an "extremely smart woman" and "well versed" with every aspect of the business.

He also said that Madam Ng retained control of the business after his father suffered a stroke, with his aunts running it and instructing Mr Jeffrey Lee.

In contrast, the sisters, in their testimony, said Madam Ng was illiterate, never received any profits from the business while she was a partner and did not take part in running the business.

Their brother had managed the business on his own until his stroke, after which Mr Jeffrey Lee took over, they added.

They also said their brother had used large sums - totalling almost $2.6 million - from the partnership's funds, such as the overdraft facility and its other bank accounts, for his personal expenses such as the purchase of several properties and investment in other businesses.

Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu said in her judgment that the money taken by Mr Lee is a debt owed to Madam Ng, and therefore to her estate. Until the debt is settled and repaid, Madam Ng's estate is not obliged to repay half of the business' debt to the bank, the judge said.

She said the sisters could choose to apply for an inquiry to trace and recover the money that Mr Lee had withdrawn from the business.

Senior Judge Lai said it was absurd for Mr Lee to have refused to admit that Madam Ng was illiterate when one of his own witnesses had already stated this was so.

"The court finds it disgraceful and deplorable that the plaintiff's sons/family have chosen to sue their paternal aunts and their grandmother's estate after the plaintiff was incapacitated by a stroke and at the same time, refuse to repay or account for all/any of the monies the plaintiff took from the partnership," she added.