Ong Chin Woon v Ong Bee Hah (co-administratrix of the estate of Tan Ah Moi, deceased) and others
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | Woo Bih Li JAD |
| Judgment Date | 05 April 2023 |
| Neutral Citation | [2023] SGHC(A) 12 |
| Court | High Court Appellate Division (Singapore) |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 54 of 2022 |
| Hearing Date | 17 March 2023 |
| Citation | [2023] SGHC(A) 12 |
| Year | 2023 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Thio Shen Yi SC, Koh Li Qun Kelvin (Xu Liqun) and Terence Yeo (TSMP Law Corporation) |
| Defendant Counsel | Hing Shan Shan Blosson, Chin Tian Hui Joshua and Claire Neoh Kai Xin (Drew & Napier LLC) |
| Subject Matter | Trusts,Resulting trusts,Presumed resulting trusts,Constructive trusts,Common intention constructive trusts |
| Published date | 11 April 2023 |
This appeal concerned the beneficial ownership of a house at No 8 Jalan Jermin, Singapore (the “Property”). The Property was purchased and registered in the sole name of the appellant’s mother. The appellant’s mother died intestate. The appellant’s two sisters, who were the administratrices of their mother’s estate, sold the Property and intended to distribute the sale proceeds equally among the beneficiaries. The appellant objected and commenced the suit below, claiming that he held either 83.7% or 100% of the beneficial interest in the Property by virtue of an arrangement with his mother and his financial contributions to the acquisition of the Property. He sought a share of the sale proceeds corresponding to his beneficial interest. The trial judge dismissed the appellant’s claim in its entirety (see
The appellant was Mr Ong Chin Woon (“OCW”). His mother was Mdm Tan Ah Moi (“M”). M passed away intestate, and her children are the beneficiaries of her estate. M’s children, in order of birth, are:
OBH and OYH were the first and second respondents respectively as co-administratrices of M’s estate. They were the sixth and seventh respondents respectively as beneficiaries of M’s estate. OSE passed away in 1997 and OEP passed away in 2017. OSE was represented in these proceedings by the sole beneficiary of her estate, Mr Ng Wuay Ming, the third respondent. OEP was represented by her sole executrix, Ms Ng Yee Ping Grace, the fifth respondent. OEP was the third co-administrator of M’s estate before she passed away in 2017. OAH was given up for adoption when she was a child, but remained a beneficiary of M’s estate. We note that at [2] of the Judgment, the trial judge stated that OAH was never part of the Ong family throughout the years when the events concerning the suit took place. Before us, it was clarified that OAH did in fact attend two family meetings after M’s passing. In any case, this was not material, and nothing turned on it.
For many of the family meetings, there were handwritten notes by OYH recording what was discussed. Their authenticity and accuracy were not disputed on appeal. The notes provided much of the evidence which we will refer to in the course of these grounds.
Background to the disputeThe facts of the case are set out in detail in the Judgment. We will simply set out the facts that were material to our decision.
In the 1970s, a property at No 1 Phoenix Garden (“the PG Property”) was purchased in the name of M although it was funded by monies from her husband’s business and a bank facility of that business. The family moved into the PG Property in 1975. In 1977, OCW and OCE were added as joint tenants of the PG Property without any payment on their part (see the Judgment at [13]).
On 21 May 1988, there was a family meeting. The handwritten notes of that meeting, recorded by OYH, stated that OCW and OCE agreed to transfer the PG Property to M (see the Judgment at [18]). At this meeting, a memo was also signed by M and her children. The English translation of this memo stated “Number 1 Phoenix Garden belongs to Tan Ah Moi (Chen Zhenmei), Ong Chin Woon, Ong Chin Ee are willing to withdraw their names. Chen Zhenmei (Tan Ah Moi) [to] handle [it] at her discretion” (see the Judgment at [19]). However, OCW and OCE did not effect a formal transfer of any interest in the PG Property to M.
Around 18 August 1988, OCW and his wife were granted an option to purchase (“OTP”) to buy a flat at Elmira Heights, Newton (“Elmira Heights”) in their joint names.
Eleven days later, on 29 August 1988, an OTP for the Property was exercised by M at a purchase price of $620,000. The OTP was not in evidence, but a STARS search for the Property indicated 29 August 1988 as the “Last Contract/Option Date”. M paid a deposit of $62,000 for this OTP.
About three weeks later, on 16 September 1988, a purchaser exercised an OTP to buy the PG Property for $540,000. This OTP was also not in evidence, but the STARS search for the PG Property indicated 16 September 1988 as the “Last Contract Date”. The purchaser paid a deposit of $54,000.
On or about 5 October 1988, a loan from United Overseas Finance (the “UOF Loan” and “UOF” respectively) was offered to M. Under the UOF Loan, M was the sole borrower and OCW was the guarantor. The UOF Loan was for the sum of $500,000. M accepted the UOF Loan some time between 5 October 1988 and the completion of the purchase of the Property.
On 29 November 1988, the purchase of the Property was completed. UOF paid $500,000 towards the purchase price. M paid the balance of $58,000, which was the purchase price less the $500,000 loan and the $62,000 deposit. In addition to the purchase price of the Property, $22,500 was paid for stamp duty, legal fees, and incidental costs (the “Ancillary Payment”). The Ancillary Payment was paid by cheque from an account with Chung Khiaw Bank Limited in the joint names of OCW and his wife (the “CKB Account”).
One month later, on 29 December 1988, the sale of the PG Property was completed. On this date, a total of $486,000 (the purchase price of $540,000 less the deposit of $54,000 that had already been received) was received. Of this sum, $162,000 was paid to M. The remaining $324,000 was paid to OCW and OCE jointly. Although $324,000 from the sale proceeds of PG Property were paid to OCW and OCE jointly, the family were told at a family meeting on 10 March 2009 that all the sale proceeds were given to M.
Two days after completion, on 31 December 1988, M lent $136,000 to Goldrich (S) Pte Ltd (“Goldrich”) while OCW and OCE lent $324,000 to Goldrich. Goldrich was a family company run principally by OCW. OCE migrated to Canada in December 1988.
Ten days later, on 10 January 1989, Goldrich issued two cheques for two sums of $460,00 and $200,000 in favour of one Cheah Kwai Foong. These monies were used to open a joint time deposit account in sterling pounds with the Bank of America. This joint time deposit account was in the names of Cheah Kwai Foong and one Chong Yook Len. According to OCW, these two individuals were Malaysians whose names were used to avoid income tax.
From 9 January 1989 to 9 April 1992, monthly payments were made to UOF to repay the UOF Loan. These payments came from the CKB Account.
On 7 May 1992, the UOF Loan was fully redeemed with a lump sum payment of $422,695.91. This payment was made from an account with Banque Indosuez in OCW’s name (the “BI Account”). There was an excess payment of $13,699.84 which was returned by UOF to M on 9 May 1992. M returned this sum to OCW on 14 May 1992.
OCW, his wife and his four children lived at the Property with M until she passed away intestate on 15 February 2015.
Following M’s passing, her surviving children held meetings to discuss the distribution of her assets and the administration of her estate. A key concern was the sale of the Property and the distribution of the proceeds of sale. OCW and OCE did not want to act as administrators of M’s estate. OBH, OYH and OEP were appointed administratrices on 3 November 2015.
Eventually, the Property was sold to OCW’s daughter’s (“OWJ”) then-boyfriend (now husband) (“Mr Low”) for $2.76m in October 2017. OCW and his wife still reside at the Property with OWJ and Mr Low.
Following the sale of the Property to Mr Low, the administratrices sought to distribute the sales proceeds amongst the beneficiaries. OCW also sought legal advice around this time. By a letter dated 26 January 2018, his lawyers asserted that M had on many occasions intimated to OCW that the Property would be left to OCW absolutely because he had contributed substantially to the purchase of the Property in 1988. OBH and OYH asked for evidence of OCW’s substantial contributions. Having received no evidence from OCW, they distributed $300,000 of the sales proceeds to each of the beneficiaries in July 2018. Thereafter, OCW filed the suit below against OBH and OYH (as administratrices) on 27 July 2018. On 1 August 2019, upon application by the administratrices, others were joined as defendants and became respondents in the appeal. Due to a lack of funds, the administratrices adopted a neutral position in respect of OCW’s claim and the other defendants contested it.
The decision belowAt the hearing below, OCW alleged that there was an arrangement between M and him at the time of purchase of the Property that OCW was to own the Property. Also, M would utilise her share of the proceeds from the sale of the PG Property to provide the $120,000 cash payment (the $62,000 deposit and the $58,000 balance sum) for the Property, and the remaining $500,000 would be financed by the UOF Loan. OCW would be solely responsible for repaying the UOF Loan. Despite the Property belonging to OCW, it would be registered in M’s name. Pursuant to this arrangement, OCW serviced the UOF Loan and made the Ancillary Payment.
In total, the UOF Loan was repaid with some monthly instalment payments and a lump sum payment of $422,695.91. The total amount paid to discharge the UOF loan was $591,889.85 (the “Mortgage Repayments”). Together with the Ancillary Payment, this made a total of $614,389.85. This sum, plus the $120,000 cash contributed by M, totalled $734,389.85. According to OCW, the Mortgage Repayments and Ancillary Payment were his...
To continue reading
Request your trial