NOTICES  In Memoriam

Eric Choa

Eric Choa Watt Chiang or Eric Choa as he was popularly known was born in Singapore on the 26th March 1916.  He came from an illustrious Peranakan family. His grandfather was Choa Kim Keat who came to Singapore from China in 1886.  Kim Keat Road is named after his grandfather. His father Choa Joon Hean worked for many years with the Overseas Assurance Corporation.

Education

Eric had his early education at Outram School and at Raffles Institution. He then proceeded to read law at Emmanuel College, Cambridge University. His contemporaries at Cambridge University included Wee Eng Lock (who succeeded Wee Swee Teow as senior partner of Wee Swee Teow & Co),  Wee Chong Jin (who was a partner of Wee Swee Teow & Co and later became the first Asian Chief Justice of Singapore), F A Chua (who later became a Judge of the Supreme Court), Victor Winslow (who was Solicitor-General and later a Judge of the Supreme Court) and the outstanding scholar Ahmad Ibrahim (later Attorney-General of Singapore). Eric Choa graduated from Cambridge with a BA, LLB in 1939 and was called to the English Bar in 1940. He was called to the Singapore Bar in April 1941.

Legal Practice

In his early years in practice Eric worked under eminent Chancery lawyers like Munro and Atkinson in Allen & Gledhill.  Subsequently he joined RCH Lim of RCH Lim & Co where he did mostly conveyancing work. After the War he set up practice under the name of Eric Choa & Co at No 20 Malacca Street.  Practising next to his office was another lawyer by the name of G E N Oehlers (who was practising with Claude DaSilva). This eventually led to the formation of a partnership known as DaSilva Oehlers & Choa. Shortly thereafter when Claude DaSilva retired from practice the firm continued under the name of Oehlers & Choa. G E N Oehlers retired from the firm in 1955 when he was appointed Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. Eric retired as senior partner of Oehlers & Choa in 1980 and continued as a consultant in the firm. On 1st January 1989 Oehlers & Choa merged with Wee Swee Teow & Co and  Eric continued as a consultant in Wee Swee Teow & Co until his eventual retirement from practice in 1998 at the age of 82.

Eric was a meticulous conveyancer and an accomplished Chancery lawyer. He handled some of the most complicated chancery matters which existed at that time including the Mahella Estate, the Alkaff Settlements, The Sallim Talib Settlements and the Tan Tye Estate.  He appeared as Counsel in several chancery matters (many of which were unfortunately not reported as no written judgments were delivered) where his opponents were well known lawyers like Nasir Mallal, M B Brash, Philip Hoalim and Bobby Green.

Reported Cases

One of the earliest reported cases argued by Eric was In Re Shaik Ramzan b Basarawi decd [1951]MLJ 93. In that case the sole question before the Court was whether the Estate & Trust Agencies Ltd that had managed the estate of the deceased under an Order of the Japanese Court (when the former trustee was in prison) was entitled to remuneration for services rendered to the estate. Eric who appeared for the Estate & Trust Agencies Ltd argued that his clients were entitled to such remuneration. Chief Justice Murray-Aynsley in holding that the Estate & Trust Agencies Ltd were entitled to reasonable remuneration said in the course of his judgment:

It would be manifestly inequitable if the applicants were to get nothing for their labours and expenditure.  Usually when Courts find themselves in the position in which I now am, get out of the difficulty by one or other of two expedients; they discover some kind of a trust, or some kind of what they call an implied contract.  The zeal they displayed to do justice has led to such frequent use of these expedients that English Law has no rational theory of obligations. On the other hand, English Law failed to develop quasi-contract which is a more rational method of dealing with the problem. There is no question here of a trust and I think it would be a perversion of facts to find that there is any obligation to pay the applicants resulting from agreement. But it would be wrong to treat the assumption of their duties by the applicants as unlawful. Until 1950 no objection was taken to the applicants continuing to act. I think that in these unusual circumstances the law should be capable of adapting itself to do justice, and I consider that the benefit derived by the beneficiaries from the activities of the applicants created an obligation to give a reasonable remuneration for the services rendered and to indemnify them for expenses incurred. In the absence of agreement the matter must be referred to the Registrar to quantify. Cost of all parties, solicitor and client, out of estate.

In late 1969 Eric argued the case of Hoo Yan Meng v Esah [1969-71]SLR 272. The sole question in that case was whether a member of a deceased statutory tenant’s family was protected under section 16(c) of the then Control of Rent Act. Eric appeared for the appellant. Justice Winslow who held that the defendant was a “contractual quasi-tenant” reasoned thus :

It was contended with some vigour by Mr Eric Choa, counsel for the appellant, that this particular provision is misleading and has been misunderstood in the past. He claimed that whilst this provision confers rights on landlords to recover possession of domestic premises in the circumstances set out therein, it confers no rights whatsoever on tenants.  ....Since the landlord cannot recover premises from such a person so long as he continues to reside therein and to pay rent and abides by such other obligations as formerly existed between the deceased tenant and the landlord, it follows that the Ordinance compels the landlord to recognize a right on the part of such person to quiet enjoyment. He is not merely a licensee. He is in a stronger position than that.  He is, to all intents and purposes, a tenant even though he is neither a contractual nor a statutory tenant. If I may be permitted to coin an expression to describe him, he is a ‘compulsory quasi-tenant’ (even though the Ordinance has not clearly defined his status) who enjoys the protection of s 16(c) which carries with it a right to quiet enjoyment like any other tenant.

The creature referred to as the “compulsory quasi-tenant” was “still born” and subsequent Courts in Singapore and Malaysia have deprecated the decision. However with the abolition of the Control of Rent Act some years ago Hoo Yan Meng’s Case has become part of legal history.

Another interesting case argued by Eric was the Alkaff Settlements Case [1969-71]SLR 454. In that case Justice Choor Singh upheld the submissions made by Eric that the provisions of the 1888 Settlement regarding the disposition of the corpus consisted of two gifts - the original gift to the grandchildren and a substitutional gift to other remoter descendants in case there were no grandchildren alive at the date of distribution. However the decision in the  Alkaff Settlements Case came up before the Court again some 20 years later in  Syed Yacob v Syed Alwee & Ors [1990]SLR 1085. The main issue there was whether the plaintiff was estopped by the decision in the Alkaff Settlements Case (a decision on the construction of the capital clause in the 1888 Settlement) from relitigating the effect of the capital clause.  Eric appeared for the trustees and argued that the plaintiff was estopped from relitigating the effect of the capital clause as the plaintiff was bound by the judgment of Justice Choor Singh in the Alkaff Settlements Case. Justice Chan Sek Keong (as he then was) in an erudite judgment (after reviewing all the authorities) held inter alia that:

In my view, Choor Singh J’s decision in OD No. 41/70 operates as a cause of action estoppel as well as an issue estoppel against the plaintiff. He is asserting as a cause of action the subject matter of the previous determination which is binding on him by reason of the representation order until it is reversed by a higher Court: see Re Waring (decd) [1948]1 All ER 257, a case where a party sought to relitigate the construction of a Will given by a previous Court.  .... 

Accordingly, the plaintiff fails in this action on construction. The proper course for him to have taken was to have applied to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal and to adduce the new evidence before the Court.

Music and Reading

Eric loved classical music. He was a violinist and played first violin in the Cambridge University Orchestra and in the Singapore Orchestra (where Choo Huey the conductor was a member) in his younger days. He was also an avid reader and his interest covered a wide range of subjects. 

Private Life

Eric was a very private person who shunned any form of publicity.  Despite his wealth he was extremely humble and led a simple life. He was married to Hoo Yan Meng (grand-daughter of Hoo Ah Kay also known as Whampoa in whose name Whampoa Road had been named) and they have three children Victor, Adrienne and Dennise. He travelled extensively in his late fifties and early sixties to Europe, the United States, Hong Kong and Japan.  Eric’s favourite form of exercise was swimming. However after his eye operation in the 1970’s he started walking which he did regularly in the early hours of the morning. He loved animals and kept dogs and cats including stray cats.  Eric lived with his wife at his sprawling Marine Parade home. He died at the age of 93 on the 7th November 2009 leaving his widow and children to mourn his loss.

Personal Note

Eric was my pupil master, employer and eventually my partner in the firm of Oehlers & Choa. He became a consultant when Oehlers & Choa merged with Wee Swee Teow & Co in 1989. I practiced law with him for some 36 years. He was an honest and upright man whose word was his bond. He was also a wordsmith who took great pains over his written work. Though he was a difficult task master as an employer it was a great pleasure to work and learn from him. It was he who initiated me into chancery work in the early 1970s and I am most grateful to have had him as my teacher and mentor.

Eric was humble, soft spoken and often self effacing that few knew or appreciated the measure of the man. As in life he left quietly and peacefully in his sleep. One is reminded of the words of P B Shelley:

Death is the veil which those who live call life:
They sleep, and it is lifted.

T P B Menon
Wee Swee Teow & Co