SINGAPORE - In a case that pitted family loyalty against a father's final wishes, the Singapore High Court dismissed a daughter's bid to recover S$1.711 million that her late businessman father had given to the woman who cared for him in his final years.

The daughter, acting as executor of her father's estate, had sued Sun, described as the late Mr Chew's long-term romantic partner and devoted caregiver, seeking to claw back the money. She argued that the transfers should not stand, but Justice Jeyaretnam found otherwise in a judgment delivered in October 2026.

The judge found there was no doubt about Chew's mental capacity. Notably, Chew had made a will on August 15, 2024, in which he gave his shares in Evergreen Seafood to his daughter and confirmed an earlier gift of a residential property to his wife. The court also found no evidence that Sun had exercised undue influence over him.

Instead, the judge accepted that Sun had been Chew's devoted caregiver, shouldering much of the caregiving burden at times almost single-handedly. Her account was supported by six other witnesses. One friend of Chew testified that the businessman had been concerned that Sun, alone in Singapore, might lose her employment after his death and be left with no income or place to live. A property agent testified that Chew had spoken about supporting Sun's purchase of a property, with a budget of S$1.4 million. Two months after Chew's death, Sun used some of the money to buy an apartment, which she later rented out.

The court also noted that Chew had made separate and sufficient provision for his wife and daughter, which supported the likelihood that he had intended the gift to Sun as recognition of the care she had provided.

With the case dismissed, Sun was awarded S$182,500 in legal costs, plus goods and services tax and disbursements of S$10,931.91, bringing her total costs award to about S$210,000.

The case struck a chord in Singapore, where an ageing population has made eldercare one of the defining social issues of the decade. It raised uncomfortable questions about the claims of family members versus those of the people who actually provide day-to-day care, and about how the courts should weigh a person's autonomy to dispose of their own money against the expectations of their heirs.

For estate planners, the judgment was a reminder of the importance of clear documentation. Because Chew's intentions were corroborated by witnesses and consistent with his other testamentary arrangements, the court had little difficulty upholding the gift. For families, it was a poignant illustration of how money, love and duty can collide in the aftermath of a death.