Koh Ai Gek and another v Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd (Tan Wei Chieh and others, third parties)

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgePang Khang Chau JC
Judgment Date02 April 2018
Neutral Citation[2018] SGHC 74
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Docket NumberSuit No 1142 of 2013
Published date05 March 2019
Year2018
Hearing Date29 August 2016,23 August 2016,19 August 2016,18 August 2016,31 August 2016,30 August 2016,26 August 2016,25 August 2016,29 August 2017,17 August 2016,02 September 2016,24 August 2016,01 September 2016,17 November 2016,22 August 2016
Plaintiff CounselPlaintiffs in person
Defendant CounselChong Kuan Keong and Sia Ernest (Chong Chia & Lim LLC),Third Parties in person.
Subject MatterTrusts,Constructive trusts,Common intention constructive trusts,Equity,Estoppel,Proprietary estoppel
Citation[2018] SGHC 74
Pang Khang Chau JC: Introduction

The defendant, Geok Hong Company Private Limited (“the Company”) held the legal title to a house at 17 Glasgow Road (“the Glasgow Road Property”). Being a family-owned company, all the directors of the Company at the time the dispute arose were siblings. One of these directors, the late Mr Tan Tiong Luu (“TTL”) had been staying in the Glasgow Road Property with his wife and children as their family home since the 1970s. TTL claimed that he was entitled to the Glasgow Road Property by reason of a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. He passed away on 9 November 2012.

The 1st plaintiff, Koh Ai Gek (“KAG”), is the widow of TTL and the person to whom TTL had specifically bequeathed the Glasgow Road Property in his will. The 2nd plaintiff, Tan Wei Yang (“TWY”) is the third son of TTL and the executor of TTL’s will. The plaintiffs claimed the Glasgow Road Property on behalf of TLL’s estate. The Company counterclaimed against the plaintiffs for delivery of vacant possession of the Glasgow Road Property and for damages. The Company also sought the same reliefs, by way of third party proceedings, against the other family members of TTL residing at the Glasgow Road Property.

I allowed the plaintiffs’ claim and dismissed the Company’s counterclaim and claims against the third parties. The Company has appealed.

Summary of the plaintiffs’ case

The plaintiffs claimed that the Glasgow Road Property was bought by TTL’s father, the late Mr Tan Geok Chuan (“TGC”) in 1975 for TTL. TGC decided to put the Glasgow Road Property in the Company’s name to avoid the possibility of KAG claiming a share in the Glasgow Road Property should her marriage with TTL break down. A similar arrangement was made in relation to TGC’s own family home at Surin Lane (“the Surin Lane Property”) which was originally held in the name of TTL’s eldest brother, Tan Tiong Wah (“TTW”). Legal title to the Surin Lane Property was transferred to the Company at TGC’s direction soon after TTW got married.

TGC made this arrangement for TTL because he was the main person helping TGC with the business of the Company and also because, by staying behind to help with the business of the Company, TTL made it possible for his younger siblings to have the opportunity to study abroad. Although TTL had two elder brothers who were also working for the Company, TTL played a more significant role as he was the only one among them with good command of the English language. TTLs; key role in the Company was evidenced by the fact that TTL was, at that time, drawing the same salary as TGC, which was roughly 40% higher than what his two elder brothers were drawing. TTL was also the only one among his siblings to be appointed as a director to all the family-related companies.

When TTL and KAG applied to buy a flat from the Housing and Development Board (“HDB”), TGC discouraged TTL from buying the HDB flat, explaining that TTL already had the Glasgow Road Property which was held on trust for TTL by the Company. Apart from property tax and insurance which were paid by the Company, all other expenses relating to the Glasgow Road Property were paid by TTL. Over the years, TTL and KAG made various improvements to the Glasgow Road Property. These include major earthworks such as filling in the pond in front of the house and changing the gradient of the driveway. It also included installing flushing toilets in the house and laying sewerage pipes under the land to connect the Glasgow Road Property to the public sewerage system when the neighbourhood converted from the night soil system to modern sanitation.

The directors of the Company were aware of these improvement works (since, as TTL’s siblings, they would have visited the Glasgow Road Property from time to time) and had acquiesced in TTL expending his own money on the Glasgow Road Property in this way.

TTL contracted liver cancer in 2012. During the final fortnight of his life, after a visit by some of his siblings, TTL became agitated and told his children that his siblings refused to “return” the Glasgow Road Property to him and had instead asked TTL to go and die quickly. (TGC had passed away in 1990, so the only persons who could effect a transfer of legal title from the Company to TTL would be his siblings who were also fellow directors of the Company.) TTL informed his children that he wished to make a statement in front of a commissioner for oath and lodge a caveat against the Glasgow Road Property. A statutory declaration (“the SD”) was made that same evening outlining TTL’s version of events concerning Glasgow Road Property. A caveat was lodged against the Glasgow Road Property five days later. TTL passed away nine days after the SD was made. About three weeks preceding the said visit by TTL’s siblings and the making of the SD, TTL had made a will bequeathing the Glasgow Road Property in specie to KAG, referring to it in the will as “my house”.

Summary of the defendant’s case

The Company submitted that there was no credible evidence of the representations TGC was alleged to have made to TTL and/or KAG. TTL’s SD was a self-serving document which was inadmissible under the rule in Shephard v Cartwright [1955] AC 431 (“Shephard v Cartwright”).

KAG was disliked by TGC and his wife because they disapproved of her marriage to TTL. It was therefore improbable that TGC would have made the alleged special arrangement in respect of the Glasgow Road Property for TTL’s benefit.

The overall conduct of the family members showed that TGC bought the Glasgow Road Property for the benefit of the family as a whole. The fact that TGC ensured, in his later years, that each of his children would have a similar share in the Company was evidence that TGC intended that each of his children should get a similar share of the Company’s assets through the ownership of shares in the Company.

TTW and his wife also resided at the Glasgow Road Property, the latter until she divorced TTW and left the family in 1981 and the former until he was committed to the Institute of Mental Health (“IMH”) in 1993. The Glasgow Road Property was used to store the Company’s goods and, in later years, was used by Tan Tiong Hin (“TTH”), TTL’s second brother, to store goods for his other businesses. Tan Tiong Seng (“TTS”), TTL’s fourth brother, also ran a bakkwa business out of an enclosed metal shelter at the back of the house for several years. (“Bakkwa” is a dried meat product similar to jerky which is made from pork.) This shows that the Glasgow Road Property was never intended for TTL’s exclusive benefit.

Further, TTL had not relied on the alleged representations to his detriment. The improvements done to the Glasgow Road Property were either undertaken or paid for by the Company or, to the extent they were undertaken and paid for TTL, of too trivial a nature. TTL did not withdraw his HDB flat application in reliance on any assurance by TGC that the Glasgow Road Property belonged to TTL. TTL withdrew his HDB flat application either because he was cash-strapped or because he did not like the location of the available flats. On the contrary, TTL had benefited by being allowed to stay rent-free in the Company’s property for 40 years.

TTL’s delay in bringing forth his claim had caused prejudice to the Company such that TTL’s claim was barred by the doctrine of laches. Significantly, TTL did not raise his claim to the Glasgow Road Property when TGC made a will which did not mention the Glasgow Road Property nor did TTL do so when TGC passed away.

Procedural and evidentiary issues

A number of procedural and evidentiary points arising in these proceedings can conveniently dealt with preliminarily in this section of the judgement before I proceed to consider the facts and the law in detail. To give context to the discussion in this section of the judgment, I should mention that all the plaintiffs and third parties appeared in these proceedings as litigants-in-person.

KAG’s standing

The suit was commenced on 13 December 2013 with KAG as the sole plaintiff. She was then represented by the Legal Aid Bureau. In May 2014, the Company applied to strike out the statement of claim on the ground, inter alia, that KAG had no standing to sue as she was merely a beneficiary under TTL’s will. The application was dismissed. Although the Company appealed, it would appear from the court records that the appeal was pursued on other points, and that the point about KAG’s standing was not taken up on appeal.

When I first saw parties at a pre-trial conference just before the commencement of the trial, KAG was still the sole plaintiff. By that time, legal aid had been withdrawn from KAG and she was acting in person. At that point in time, TWY’s involvement in the case was only as a third party brought in by the Company. (TWY was sued in his personal capacity as the 3rd third party and in his representative capacity as the 6th third party.) I expressed doubts about KAG’s standing to bring a claim on behalf of TTL’s estate as she was merely a beneficiary under TTL’s will and not the personal representative of TTL. I directed parties to address their minds to the issue and resolve it by the commencement of trial as I did not wish parties to go through a three-week trial only to have the case disposed of solely on the question of KAG’s standing.

On the morning of the first day of trial, TWY applied to be joined as co-plaintiff. As TWY, being the executor of TTL’s will, was a proper plaintiff, the Company did not object to TWY’s application in-principle. Instead, the Company sought only to be compensated for costs arising from joinder of TWY as a co-plaintiff. I therefore granted TWY’s application while ordering costs in favour of the Company. (Despite this change in the capacity of TWY in these proceedings, the transcript of the trial continued to refer to TWY throughout as...

To continue reading

Request your trial
1 cases
  • Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd v Koh Ai Gek and others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • February 28, 2019
    ...Grounds of Decision (“the GD”) are reported at Koh Ai Gek and another v Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd (Tan Wei Chieh and others, third parties) [2018] SGHC 74. With respect, we are of the view that the Judge’s findings in respect of the alleged oral representation were made against the weight of the......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT