By Chuan Thye Tan; Daniel Chia

The Singapore High Court has held in the recent highly-publicised case of Aamna Taseer v Shaan Taseer and others [2012] SGHC 32 that beneficiaries of an estate cannot lodge caveats to protect properties of the estate. The Court drew a distinction between beneficiaries who were entitled to specific assets of the estate and beneficiaries only entitled to a share of the value of the estate.

In respect of the latter, the Court held that the interest of such beneficiaries could not support a caveat because the beneficiaries' interest was not in any specific asset of the estate.

This is the first time the Singapore courts have decided on the right of beneficiaries of an estate to lodge a caveat against property. The decision is important and serves to highlight the common misconception that beneficiaries of an estate can stake a direct interest in properties of the estate (whether by lodging a caveat or otherwise).

We represented the successful party in the case.

The Case

The case dealt with the fallout between the children from the first marriage of the former Governor of Punjab, Salmaan Taseer (who was assassinated) and his second wife, Aamna Taseer. Upon Salmaan Taseer's death, Aamna Taseer became the sole owner of a high-end property at Sentosa Cove through the operation of the principles of joint tenancy.

The children from the first marriage lodged a caveat against the property on the basis that they were beneficiaries to Salmaan Taseer's estate under Syariah law and that Aamna Taseer held the property on trust for his estate. Aamna Taseer, who we represented, applied to the Singapore High Court for an order that the caveat be removed.

Although there was no prior decision in Singapore on the right of such beneficiaries to lodge a caveat on behalf of the estate, we successfully drew a distinction between a beneficiary's right to the value of the estate and the beneficiary's right to specific assets of the estate. In so doing, we raised, for the first time, the novel question of whether such beneficiaries had a caveatable interest in land.

We successfully argued that:

  • beneficiaries of an unadministered estate do not have rights to any specific property or asset in the estate. They only have the right to compel an executor or administrator to complete the proper administration of the estate; and
  • the right to compel administration of the estate is not an interest which can support the lodging of a caveat against the property, even if the beneficiaries assert that such property belongs to the estate and the registered proprietor should be made to account for such property.

The Court adopted our arguments wholesale and ordered the removal of the caveat.

Important Observations

This is a landmark decision in Singapore. For the first time, the Court recognised that beneficiaries of an estate cannot lodge caveats unless they have a direct interest in the property (perhaps in the case of specific gifts under a will). Otherwise, the rights of such beneficiaries are only limited to compelling the proper administration of the estate by the executor or administrator – they cannot stake claims to specific assets of the estate until administration is complete.