Lim Kieuh Huat v Lim Teck Leng and another and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sundaresh Menon CJ
• Judgment Date: 29 March 2021
• Neutral Citation: [2021] SGCA 28
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos 154 and 156 of 2020
• Subject Matter: Constructive trusts,Resulting trusts,Trusts
• Published date: 07 April 2021
• Defendant Counsel: Lai Ying Ling Jenny and Lai Ying Mei Jennifer (Lai Yanmei Jennifer) (Jenny Lai & Co),Hannah Cheang (Focus Law Asia LLC)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 29 March 2021
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mohammad Shafiq bin Haja Maideen (Abdul Rahman Law Corporation)

Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court ex tempore):

These appeals concern the beneficial ownership of a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat at Kim Tian Road (“the Kim Tian Flat”). The first respondent in these appeals, Mr Lim Teck Leng (“the Son”) is the registered owner of the Kim Tian Flat. His parents, the appellants in each of these appeals (“the Parents”), claimed that they were the beneficial owners of that flat. The second respondent, Ms Zhang Hong Hong, the Son’s ex-wife (“the Wife”), disputed this claim. On the Parents’ application to the High Court, the High Court judge (“the Judge”) dismissed the Parents’ claim to any beneficial interest in the Kim Tian Flat: see Lim Kieuh Huat and another v Lim Teck Leng and another [2020] SGHC 181 (“the Judgment”).

Broadly speaking, there were two issues before the Judge. First, would the Parents be precluded from claiming such beneficial ownership of the Kim Tian Flat under a trust by reason of the relevant provisions of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) (“HDA”)? Second, if not, could the Parents’ claim to beneficial ownership of the Kim Tian Flat be sustained on the facts? The Judge held that the Parents would be precluded from making such a claim, both under ss 51(8)–(9) and s 51(10) of the HDA, and that, in any event, the Parents’ claim could not be sustained on the facts (see the Judgment at [9]–[10]).

Background

We begin by setting out some of the material background facts. In 1994, the Parents had purchased an HDB flat in Choa Chu Kang (“the CCK Flat”) in their joint names. In 2007, there was some discussion surrounding the purchase of a flat in Silat Walk (“the Silat Flat”) and the sale of the CCK Flat. That same year, the CCK Flat was sold. On 26 September 2007, the Son obtained the HDB’s approval for him to purchase the Silat Flat, which he then did in his sole name. In 2012, the Silat Flat was compulsorily acquired by the Government under the Selective En bloc Redevelopment Scheme (“SERS”). The total compensation of $160,400.00 for this acquisition was paid out as follows: (a) an advance of $25,000.00; (b) a contra for the purchase of a new flat (“the SERS Contra”) to the value of $27,269.55; and (c) a cheque for the balance of $108,130.45.

The Kim Tian Flat was purchased in 2011 by the Son in his sole name. The SERS Contra was applied towards the initial payment of the Kim Tian Flat, another $7,935 was funded from his Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account, and the balance of $264,500 was funded by a loan in the Son’s name, which was serviced by funds from his CPF account.

The Son had married the Wife in 2010 and they divorced in 2016, with final judgment granted in 2018. This dispute arose in the context of the Son’s divorce from the Wife. In the divorce proceedings, after the Son’s failure to comply with certain court orders, the Wife obtained an order for the sale of the Kim Tian Flat. Shortly thereafter, the Parents commenced the action that has led to this appeal.

Parties’ cases

It was the Parents’ case both below and on appeal that they were the beneficial owners of the Kim Tian Flat under a common intention constructive trust or a resulting trust because they had funded the purchase of the Kim Tian Flat. Their account of how this was done began with the CCK Flat. The CCK Flat had been fully financed by them. They had wanted the Silat Flat to be registered in their names, but the Son convinced them to register it in his name because their age prevented them from obtaining housing loans and because they would have incurred a sales levy if they purchased the Silat Flat, being prior owners of an HDB flat. As the Silat Flat was purchased using the sale proceeds of the CCK Flat, they had fully financed the Silat Flat as well. Subsequently, the SERS Contra from the Silat Flat was used to finance the Kim Tian Flat in part, which should be taken as their contribution to the purchase of the latter. Further, the Son held the balance of the sale proceeds from the CCK Flat and the Silat Flat, as well as their life savings which they had transferred to him. As these sums exceeded the purchase price of the Kim Tian Flat, the Parents argued that they should be taken as having financed the purchase of the Kim Tian Flat as a whole. On the issue of s 51 of the HDA, they took the position that they were not ineligible owners and were therefore entitled to mount their claim to the entire beneficial interest in the Kim Tian Flat under a resulting or constructive trust.

On appeal, the Parents further submitted that as the Son did not use the moneys that they had provided for the purchase of the Kim Tian Flat, a remedial constructive trust or equitable lien ought to be imposed over the Kim Tian Flat. This seemed to us to be a belated attempt to get around various weaknesses in their case that the Judge had identified. These arguments were not raised or considered below and would require fresh findings of fact. In the circumstances and in the light of the established principles concerning when leave should be granted to raise new arguments on appeal (see JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law...