Ong Swee Geok v Gee Ah Eng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Andre Maniam JC
• Judgment Date: 31 May 2021
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 100 of 2021 and Summons No 2123 of 2021
• Year: 2021
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ong Swee Geok and another

and

Gee Ah Eng

[2021] SGHC 119

Andre Maniam JC

Originating Summons No 100 of 2021 and Summons No 2123 of 2021

General Division of the High Court

Trusts — Resulting trusts —Purchase money resulting trust —First applicant contributing to purchase price of Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat in cash —First applicant ineligible to acquire HDB flat at time when contributions to purchase price were made —Whether purported resulting trust was null and void —Whether first applicant was precluded from claiming beneficial interest in HDB flat —Sections 47(1)(a), 51(8), 51(9) and 51(10) Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed)

Held, dismissing the Application and the OS:

(1) Swee Geok and Swee Hwa ceased being registered owners of the Flat (in 1987 and 1993 respectively) so that they could acquire other HDB flats of their own. That was required of them by s 47(1)(a) of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the HDA”), which provided that no person who “is the owner of any other [HDB flat] … or has an … interest therein” shall be entitled to purchase an HDB flat. Since Swee Geok and Swee Hwa presently owned other HDB flats, they were ineligible to acquire the Flat: at [7], [8], [26] and [27].

(2) A purchase money resulting trust over an HDB flat would be subject to ss 51(8)–51(9) of the HDA when it was purportedly created by a person making payments towards the flat while she was not a registered owner (thereby appearing to no longer have an interest in it) while intending to be its beneficial owner and regarding the registered owner as a mere nominee holding the flat as a bare trustee for her: at [36] to [41].

(3) If that person had been the owner of another HDB flat at the time when the contributions to purchase price were made, the trust would be null and void under ss 51(8)–51(9) of the HDA and she could not retain or acquire a beneficial interest in the HDB flat. This was consonant with the policy of avoiding abuse by persons who would and could easily purchase HDB properties through nominees and the restrictions on dual ownership of HDB flats pursuant to s 47(1)(a) of the HDA: at [43] to [46].

(4) Sections 51(8)–51(9) of the HDA defeated Swee Geok and Swee Hwa's claim in the OS to the beneficial interest in the Flat. They also defeated Swee Geok's claim in the proposed amended OS to the beneficial interest in its sale proceeds, because Swee Geok had made the Cash Payments while she was no longer the registered owner (but intending to be its beneficial owner) and regarding her parents (and later, Mdm Gee) as mere nominees holding the Flat as a bare trustee for her. The fact that the resulting trust in favour of Swee Geok was purportedly created some time after the initial purchase of the Flat did not avoid the operation of ss 51(8)–51(9) of the HDA: at [41], [42] and [51].

(5) Section 51(10) of the HDA prevented a person who was ineligible to acquire an HDB flat from obtaining or becoming entitled to an interest in such a flat by way of a resulting or constructive trust. The question of eligibility depended on whether the particular person could purchase the particular flat, and what conditions had to be met before that purchase would be approved: at [25].

(6) By virtue of s 51(10) of the HDA, Swee Geok and Swee Hwa, who were ineligible to acquire the Flat, were not entitled to the Flat or any interest in it. Their claim in the OS to the beneficial interest in the Flat therefore had to fail: at [28] and [29].

[Observation: There was no constructive trust in the present case. Swee Geok and Swee Hwa did not assert a constructive trust, and there was clearly no common intention between them (on the one hand) and Mdm Gee (on the other hand) that the Flat belonged to Swee Geok and Swee Hwa, or to Swee Geok alone: at [50].

Section 51(10) of the HDA was a prohibition and did not save any purported trust that was null and void on an application of ss 51(8)–51(9). However, in this case, it was not necessary to decide if s 51(10) of the HDA might also have stood in the way of Swee Geok's claim to the sale proceeds of the Flat: at [52].]

Case(s) referred to

Cheong Yoke Kuen v Cheong Kwok Kiong [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1126; [1999] 2 SLR 476 (folld)

Chong Sze Pak v Chong Ser Yoong [2011] 3 SLR 80 (folld)

Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong [2011] 3 SLR 125 (folld)

Lim Kieuh Huat v Lim Teck Leng [2021] 1 SLR 1328 (folld)

Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence [2013] 3 SLR 710 (refd)

Ong Chai Koon v Ong Chai Soon [2021] SGHC 76 (refd)

Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng [2007] 1 SLR(R) 265; [2007] 1 SLR 265 (folld)

Facts

In or around 1980, the respondent (“Mdm Gee”) and the first applicant (“Swee Geok”) jointly applied to purchase a Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat (“the Flat”). Mdm Gee and Swee Geok became registered co-owners of the Flat, and Swee Geok made payments towards it from her Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) account.

In or around 1987, the second applicant (“Swee Hwa”) replaced Swee Geok as a registered co-owner of the Flat and made payments towards the Flat from her CPF account. What Swee Geok had paid towards the Flat was refunded to her CPF account.

In or around 1993, Mdm Gee's husband (“Mr Ong”) replaced Swee Hwa as a registered co-owner of the Flat. What Swee Hwa had paid towards the Flat was refunded to her CPF account. From 1993, Swee Geok paid towards the Flat in cash until the Flat was fully paid up in early 2016 (“the Cash Payments”).

In 2009, Mr Ong passed away, leaving Mdm Gee as the sole registered owner of the Flat. Mdm Gee made a will in 2013, purporting to bequeath the Flat to her son (“Joo Hak”). Mdm Gee and Joo Hak (and Joo Hak's family) were the only remaining occupants of the Flat.

Swee Geok and Swee Hwa filed Originating Summons No 100 of 2021 (“OS”), claiming a declaratory judgment that they had a 58% and 42% beneficial interest respectively in the Flat. They subsequently filed a supplementary affidavit, acknowledging that they had been refunded all the payments they had made using their CPF accounts, and so only the Cash Payments remained outstanding.

Swee Geok and Swee Hwa then filed an application to amend the OS (“the Application”). Under the proposed amended OS, Swee Hwa, recognising that she had been refunded all that she had paid towards the Flat, abandoned any claim to the Flat or its sale proceeds. Swee Geok claimed the beneficial interest in the whole of the sale proceeds of the Flat, rather than in the Flat itself, based on the Cash Payments.

Swee Geok added that she would not seek to realise her beneficial interest in the sale proceeds of the Flat until after Mdm Gee's lifetime or until the time the Flat was sold (whichever came first).

Legislation referred to

Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 47(1)(a), 51(4)–51(5)

Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) ss 51(8), 51(9), 51(10) (consd); ss 47(1)(a), 51(11)

Sureshan s/o T Kulasingam and Samuel Ang Rong En (Sureshan LLC) for the applicants;

Respondent absent.

31 May 2021

Judgment reserved.

Andre Maniam JC:

Introduction

1 Can a person who is ineligible to acquire a particular Housing and Development Board (“HDB”) flat claim an interest in it, or in the proceeds of its sale, by way of a purchase money resulting trust?

2 Two sisters, Swee Geok and Swee Hwa (the applicants), brought this action to claim for themselves the whole of the beneficial interest in an HDB flat (“the Flat”), or its sale proceeds. The Flat is in the sole name of their mother (the respondent, Mdm Gee).

3 Swee Geok and...