Ang Bee Yian v Ang Siew Fah

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Ang Cheng Hock JC
• Judgment Date: 31 July 2019
• Neutral Citation: [2019] SGHC 178
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 22 February 2019,28 February 2019,27 February 2019,17 May 2019,25 February 2019,26 February 2019
• Docket Number: Suit No 1077 of 2017
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ng Yi Ming Daniel and Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic (Characterist LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Sia Khoon Kelvin David, Vicki Heng Su Lin and Sara Ng Qian Hui (Vicki Heng Law Corporation)
• Subject Matter: Contract,Breach,Equity,Fiduciary relationships,Constructive and resulting trusts,Limitation of Actions,Particular causes of action,Contract and trust
• Published date: 03 August 2019

Ang Cheng Hock JC: Introduction

These are proceedings brought by a younger sister against her elder sister. The younger sister seeks the repayment of moneys arising from foreign currency investments, which had been invested by the elder sister on the younger one’s behalf. The younger sister also seeks orders relating to her 25% share in a condominium unit, which share is held in the name of the elder sister. In response, the elder sister claims that the younger sister is liable for her share of significant losses arising from margin trading with a private bank, such trading having been allegedly funded by the elder sister at the younger sister’s request.

I would describe the case as an unfortunate one, not only because of the number of serious allegations made by the sisters against each other, but also because they were previously close and now have fallen out with each other over money. Not only that, the version of events posited by the plaintiff and defendant on some material aspects of the case are diametrically opposed. It is this court’s unenviable task to decide which sister is telling the truth and which sister is not.

Facts The parties

The plaintiff in this case is also referred to as “Jessie”. Her highest educational qualifications are GCE “A” levels, which she completed in 1979.¹ She is the youngest of five siblings.² She presently works as an administrative officer in an electronics company. She had previously worked for a number of years in the treasury department of a foreign bank in Singapore as part of its trade settlement team. Her job was to check that there were no discrepancies in relation to the trades and to make sure that payments were effected. The nature of her work at the bank was administrative in nature and she did not carry out any trading or make any investment decisions as part of her job.³

The defendant is the plaintiff’s elder sister and the third of the five siblings. She is also referred to as “Diana”. She graduated with a degree in accountancy from the University of Singapore in 1977. In her career, she has worked as an accountant in a number of well-known companies in Singapore.⁴ She is an experienced investor, having started trading in stocks and shares in the 1990s.⁵

There is another sister that features in this dispute, in relation to the plaintiff’s claim concerning the condominium unit. She is Mdm Ang Siew Chin, and is also referred to as “Eunice” (“Eunice”). In terms of age, she is between the plaintiff and defendant. She is the fourth of the five siblings.⁶ Eunice was not a party to these proceedings, but was called by the plaintiff as a witness.

Background to the disputes

I first set out the background to the property investment dispute involving the plaintiff’s share in the condominium unit since the property in question was purchased in the late 1990s, well before the plaintiff and defendant made the foreign currency investments that were the subject of the plaintiff’s other claim.

Since 1983, the plaintiff’s and defendant’s mother has been living with the defendant. The plaintiff and Eunice would visit the defendant’s home to see their mother. So, the defendant would often be around to chat with them when they visited.⁷

During one of these visits in late 1995 or early 1996, the defendant, Eunice and the plaintiff talked about buying a unit in a condominium called Northvale, located in Choa Chu Kang, as an investment.⁸ The three of them eventually agreed to go ahead with the purchase of the unit (“the Northvale property”) with their agreed ownership interests being 50% for the defendant and 25% each for Eunice and the plaintiff.⁹ The purchase price was paid by each of them in proportion to their ownership interests.

The plaintiff paid S$200,582.00 in cash for her share, which was 25% of the purchase price.¹⁰ However, the Northvale property was only registered in the names of the defendant and Eunice as tenants in common in the proportion of 75:25 when the certificate of title was issued in 2001.¹¹ The reasons for the omission of the plaintiff’s name are disputed. What is not in dispute is that the defendant held a 25% interest in the Northvale property on trust for the plaintiff.

The Northvale property was rented out from about October 1999.¹² It is not seriously disputed that the shared intention of the three sisters was that all the relevant taxes, outgoings and other expenses relating to the property were to be borne by them in the proportion of their beneficial ownership interests. Correspondingly, the net rental proceeds were also to be shared by them in this proportion.

From October 2008, the defendant would periodically prepare and send spreadsheets by email to the plaintiff and Eunice setting out calculations showing the share of net rental proceeds payable to each of the three sisters, after deduction of expenses and other amounts that the defendant had paid on behalf of the plaintiff and Eunice,¹³ starting from the period beginning October 1999, when the property was first rented out. This was her way of providing an account of the rental proceeds from the Northvale property. A total of almost S$71,000 has been paid by the defendant to the plaintiff as her share of the net rental proceeds from October 1999 to July 2016.¹⁴

In August 2016, the defendant stopped paying the plaintiff her share of the net rental proceeds and also stopped providing her with an account of the rental earned on the Northvale property.¹⁵ Just three months earlier, in May 2016, the plaintiff had demanded that the defendant transfer 25% of the legal ownership of the property to her, or that the property be sold and the sale proceeds distributed amongst the three sisters.¹⁶

I move now to the foreign currency investments. During one of the plaintiff’s visits in late 2008 or early 2009 to the defendant’s house, the defendant asked the plaintiff whether the latter was interested in making money from foreign currency investments. The plaintiff expressed her interest. Over further discussions, it was agreed that the plaintiff would entrust the defendant with her funds and that the latter would invest them in foreign currencies. The plaintiff transferred S$300,000 to the defendant in May 2009, and the defendant transferred that sum to a Dual Currency Investment account with CIMB bank (“DCI account”) which had been opened in their joint names.¹⁷

A few months later, in September 2009, there was a transfer of a further S$150,000 to the DCI account.¹⁸ Although this sum was transferred from a joint account in both the names of the plaintiff and defendant, it is not disputed that the S$150,000 belonged solely to the plaintiff. So, in total, the plaintiff had invested S$450,000 in the DCI account.

It is disputed whether the defendant was in sole charge of deciding how to manage the funds, that is, whether it was the defendant who decided which foreign currency to invest in, the tenor and other terms of the deposit, and the trades carried out. The plaintiff claims that the defendant was in sole charge of decision-making, while the defendant claims that the decisions were all made jointly with the plaintiff.

There were some modest returns from these foreign currency investments. Leaving aside some small sums of interest for which the plaintiff is not claiming, the amounts contributed by the plaintiff to the DCI account, and the returns, were eventually converted to the sum of US$313,827.30. It was not disputed that this amount was due to the plaintiff.¹⁹ This amount was transferred to the defendant’s CIMB Fixed Deposit account sometime near the end of 2009.²⁰ It was then placed in fixed deposits to earn interest. The defendant claims that this was done with the plaintiff’s consent.²¹ According to the plaintiff, she was informed after the fact about the transfer, and had not authorised it. However, she did not demand the return of her money and appeared content, at least initially, for her money to be placed in fixed deposits for interest to be earned.²²

In 2010 and 2011, the defendant sent several emails to the plaintiff explaining how the figure of US$313,827.30 was derived from the various trades that had been made through the DCI account, and also informing her about the interest that was being earned from having placed the money in fixed deposits.²³ Then, in September 2012, the plaintiff wrote an email to ask for the amount to be placed in an account in the plaintiff’s own name.²⁴ This request was not complied with, nor was this amount ever repaid despite repeated demands by the plaintiff in 2013.²⁵

The parties’ cases The plaintiff’s claim

The plaintiff seeks the return of US$313,827.30 from the defendant, which is the sum retained by the latter after the maturity of the foreign currency investments. She alleges that the defendant is liable to her in contract because one of the terms of their agreement, either express or implied, is that the defendant would return the plaintiff her initial investment and the investment gain within a reasonable time after the maturity of the foreign currency investments.²⁶ Further, the plaintiff also alleges that the defendant is her fiduciary and is in breach of her fiduciary duties by refusing to repay what is due to the plaintiff. Hence, apart from personal remedies, the plaintiff claims that the defendant holds the sum US$313,827.30 on constructive trust, and is also liable to account for any profits made on that sum.²⁷

As for the Northvale property, the plaintiff alleges that there is an agreement between the plaintiff, defendant and Eunice that, amongst other things, the three of them would hold title in the property as tenants-in-common in their agreed shares, that the defendant would be the one who would solely manage the property and that she would distribute the share of the net rental proceeds to Eunice and the plaintiff.²⁸ The plaintiff claims that there is a breach...