Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased
Judge | Chao Hick Tin JA |
Judgment Date | 07 October 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 47 |
Year | 2009 |
Subject Matter | Resulting trusts,Trusts,Evidence,Proof of evidence |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 47 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Low Chai Chong, Mark Seah and Zhulkarnain Abdul Rahim (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Published date | 14 October 2009 |
Defendant Counsel | Chiah Kok Khun and Diana Ho (Wee Swee Teow & Co) |
7 October 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction
1 This appeal was filed by Loo Chay Sit (the plaintiff in Suit No 265 of 2005 (“Suit 265/2005”)) against the decision of the trial judge (“the Judge”) in Tan Chan Tee v Chen Tsui Yu
Background
The facts
5 Although the appellant was involved in the negotiations with the sellers of the Property, the Property was eventually conveyed to Loo Chay Loo in early 1979 for $195,000. Documentary evidence suggested that Loo Chay Loo had paid for the Property. Tendered in evidence were three receipts from M/s Tang & Tan, solicitors for the purchaser of the Property. The first receipt dated 9 November 1978 was for the sum of $19,500 “being payment of 10% purchase price Re: No. 7, Margate Rd., S’pore 15”[note: 1] and the other two receipts dated 3 January 1979 were for the sums of $85,510.65 described as “Completion money” and $7,150.50 being payment of solicitor’s fees and disbursements.[note: 2] All three receipts reflected the source of the moneys as Loo Chay Loo’s account with Lian Cheong (Loo Kee) (“LCLK”).[note: 3]
8 In 1999, six years after Loo Chay Loo’s move to the United States, the appellant and his parents moved into the Property and resided there till its sale on 1 September 2006. After the tragic event mentioned earlier (at [3] above) had happened, the appellant brought the claim in Suit 265/2005 against the respondent and obtained, on 29 March 2006, judgment in default of appearance. He procured the transfer of the Property to himself and sold it for $4.8m in a contract dated 1 September 2006. A year later, on 27 July 2007, the respondent successfully set aside the default judgment, and, on 3 August 2007, filed a counterclaim for the sale proceeds of the Property. On 18 January 2008, the respondent obtained an “unless order” against the appellant for he had failed to disclose, as required in an earlier court order, the details of the sale proceeds of the Property and to pay the amount into Court. The appellant failed to set aside the “unless order” and did not comply with it. In the result, his claim to the Property was dismissed.
The Judge’s decision
Arguments for the appellant’s claim
(h) In June 1999, the appellant in a letter to Loo Chay Loo and Mdm Chen had stated “if you want to talk about No 7 Margate Road, I want to say that I came up with most of the money for the purchase of the property”.[note: 4] Mdm Chen, in a reply to this letter, did not deny this claim but stated instead that: “As for the property at 7 Margate Road, grandfather told us personally when he was still alive that no 7 was for Chay Loo and no 11 was for Chay Sit, but you said [illegible text] money.”[note: 5]
Arguments against the appellant’s claim
To continue reading
Request your trial