Estate of businessman killed by father-in-law fails in appeal to get back luxury watch - The Straits Times

Mr Spencer Tuppani (left) was stabbed by his father-in-law, Mr Tan Nam Seng, on July 10, 2017. PHOTOS: SPENCER TUPPANI/FACEBOOK, ST FILE

SINGAPORE – The estate of businessman Spencer Tuppani, who was fatally stabbed by his father-in-law in 2017, has failed in an appeal to recover a luxury watch he was wearing when he was killed in Boon Tat Street.

His widow, Ms Shyller Tan Cheng Cheng, together with the two other administrators of his estate, had sued his parents to get them to hand over the Richard Mille watch, or alternatively, a sum of $389,205.13.

The other two administrators are Ms Tan’s sister, Ms Sherry Tan San San, and Mr Tuppani’s first wife, Ms Felicia Keh Lay Hong.

The exact model of the missing watch is disputed.

The blood-stained timepiece was among Mr Tuppani’s belongings collected after his death by his father, Mr Shamlal Tuppani Bisaysar.

Mr Shamlal Tuppani said he left the watch at the Leedon Residence flat where his son lived with his mistress, Ms Joan Yeo.

The estate administrators alleged that Ms Yeo handed the watch to Mr Tuppani’s mother, Madam Tham Poh Kwai. They also alleged that Madam Tham sold the watch and pocketed the proceeds.

But Madam Tham denied ever receiving a watch.

Mr Shamlal Tuppani and Madam Tham – who are divorced – were sued for conversion of the watch.

Ms Yeo, who has two children with Mr Spencer Tuppani, was not sued despite her alleged role.

Conversion is a civil wrongdoing that occurs when an unauthorised person takes the possessions of another person and deals with the goods in a way that interferes with the rights of the possessor.

The administrators had appealed to the High Court after their lawsuit was dismissed by a district judge in December 2023.

On July 12, High Court Judge Mavis Chionh dismissed the appeal. She upheld the lower court decision that the actions of Mr Shamlal Tuppani and Madam Tham did not amount to conversion.

Mr Spencer Tuppani was stabbed by his father-in-law, Mr Tan Nam Seng, on July 10, 2017.

Mr Tan was upset with Mr Tuppani for the way he had treated Ms Shyller Tan. He also believed his son-in-law had cheated him of his shipping business.

After the 38-year-old collapsed in Boon Tat Street, Mr Tan told passers-by not to help his son-in-law. He then waited for the police to arrive.

The following day, Mr Shamlal Tuppani collected his son’s body and was handed a bag containing a wallet, a car key and the watch.

He then went to the apartment that his son shared with Ms Yeo. He left the bag on a table and told her that “these are Spencer’s things”.

He said he forgot about the watch until his son’s first wife, Ms Keh, asked him about it in November 2019.

Mr Shamlal Tuppani then asked Ms Yeo about the watch and was told that Madam Tham had taken it.

He then relayed this information to Ms Keh.

During the trial, Ms Shyller Tan testified about two phone calls where she heard Madam Tham over speakerphone admitting to taking the watch and selling it to someone named “Tony”.

The two calls were said to have taken place in 2020 while Ms Shyller Tan, Ms Yeo and Ms Keh were taking a break from a mediation session.

Ms Tan also sought to rely on WhatsApp messages in which she told her sister that Madam Tham “told everyone on the phone” on the day of the mediation that she sold the watch for $160,000.

Madam Tham insisted that she had never received a watch.

She said it was Ms Yeo who had sold a watch to help her out after Madam Tham expressed concerns about paying rent for a condominium.

Madam Tham said that in late August 2017, a man came to her home and handed her $160,000. She said she had no idea what watch Ms Yeo had sold or how much she had sold it for.

Ms Yeo had made an affidavit stating that the watch had been “passed” to Madam Tham. But she did not take the witness stand during the trial and no reason was given for her absence.

In her judgment, Justice Chionh said Mr Shamlal Tuppani’s act of leaving the watch on the table “simply did not encroach so extensively on the appellants’ rights in respect of the watch as to constitute an act of conversion”.

The judge said the purpose of his act was not to confer on Ms Yeo any property rights over the watch but merely to return the timepiece to his son’s last place of residence.

Justice Chionh also considered the context in which Mr Tuppani had come into possession of the watch.

Mr Shamlal Tuppani had said it fell on him to collect his son’s body and receive his belongings because Ms Tan had “refused to take charge” of the formalities. Ms Tan did not refute this – she said she was in a state of shock at the time.

Justice Chionh stressed that the administrators have the burden of proving that Madam Tham received the watch from Ms Yeo and that she subsequently sold it.

She agreed with the lower court that little weight should be placed on Ms Tan’s testimony regarding the overheard phone calls and the message between Ms Tan and her sister.

“Not only was the evidence brought up belatedly by the appellants, but it was also not corroborated by any evidence from the other participants to the conversations,” said the judge.

Justice Chionh noted that Ms Yeo’s out-of-court statements that the watch had been passed to Madam Tham amounted to hearsay evidence.

In the absence of any testimony from Ms Yeo, there was simply no credible evidence to support the administrators’ case, said the judge.

The administrators were represented by Mr Nichol Yeo, Mr Shamlal Tuppani was represented by Mr Joseph Ignatius, and Madam Tham was represented by Mr David Nayar.

Mr Tan Nam Seng, 76, was sentenced to 8½ years’ jail in September 2020 for a reduced charge of culpable homicide.

The jail term was backdated to his date of arrest and he has been released from prison.