Pereira Dennis John Sunny v Faridah bte V Abdul Latiff

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Seng Onn J
• Judgment Date: 13 July 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGHC 167
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ignatius Joseph and Chong Xin Yi (Ignatius J & Associates)
• Date: 13 July 2017
• Docket Number: Suit No 37 of 2016
• Hearing Date: 23 January 2017,25 March 2017,26 January 2017,16 January 2017
• Subject Matter: Trusts,Presumed resulting trusts,Fiduciary relationships,Constructive trusts,Common intention constructive trusts,Equity,When arising,Resulting trusts
• Year: 2017
• Defendant Counsel: Abdul Rahman bin Mohd Hanipah and Mohammed Shakirin bin Abdul Rashid (Abdul Rahman Law Corporation)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2017] SGHC 167
• Published date: 20 July 2017

Chan Seng Onn J: Introduction

The present action concerns a dispute over the beneficial ownership of several properties jointly owned by an estranged couple whose marriage turned sour. It commenced with the present suit taken out by the husband, Pereira Dennis John Sunny (“the Plaintiff”), against his then-wife, Faridah Binte V Abdul Latiff (“the Defendant”) seeking a determination of the parties’ respective share of four properties held in the joint names of the Plaintiff and the Defendant (“the Parties”).

At the outset, I must state that on 14 February 2017, after the conduct of the trial and before I rendered this decision, the Parties were granted a divorce by the Singapore Syariah Court (“the Syariah Court”). However, the fact that the Parties are divorced has no bearing on my decision in the present suit, which relates to a determination of the pre-divorce positions of the Parties as beneficial owners of the four properties concerned. I will elaborate further on this distinction below (see [12]–[22]).

Background facts

The Parties were solemnised under Syariah law on 28 December 1995.¹ The Parties have a daughter in their marriage, who is now around 18 years old (“the daughter”).² During the subsistence of the marriage, the primary breadwinner of the family was the Plaintiff, who earned income through his business, Offshore Logistics (Asia Pacific) Pte Ltd (“the Plaintiff’s business”), as well as the rental proceeds collected from several properties that the Parties had purchased both abroad and in Singapore.³ Before tying the knot with the Plaintiff, the Defendant was a divorcee⁴ and had a son from her previous marriage (“the son”).⁵ The Plaintiff paid for the financial expenses of the son, including about $600,000 for his undergraduate studies in Australia.⁶

Between 1992 and 1998, the Defendant worked as a freelance aerobics instructor,⁷ earning about $2,000 to $3,000 per month.⁸ When the Defendant became pregnant sometime around November 1998,⁹ the Defendant quit her job to become a full-time homemaker¹⁰ and subsequently spent most of her time taking care of the daughter¹¹ with the assistance of a domestic helper.¹² Thereafter, from June 2004 to 2007, the Defendant operated a spa and fitness centre (“the Defendant’s business”) with her sister.¹³ The Defendant did not herself provide any funds to run this business – $10,000 was contributed by the Defendant’s sister and the remaining capital of about $90,000 was borne by the Plaintiff.¹⁴ During the first two years of operation, the Defendant’s business did not make any profits. Subsequently, when it started losing money, the Plaintiff had to pump in money to supplement its operating expenses.¹⁵ The Defendant’s business was eventually struck off in 2013.¹⁶

The Parties purchased several properties in their joint names throughout the course of their marriage. The present dispute, however, concerns only the following four properties (collectively referred to as “the disputed properties”): 700 Upper Changi Road East, #02-08, Singapore 486830, which is a condominium (“the Changi Court property”); 44 Toh Crescent, Singapore 507956, which is a landed property (“the Toh Crescent property”); 209 Jalan Loyang Besar, Aston Residence, #01-14, Singapore 509489, which is a condominium (“the Aston Residence”); and 4 Queen’s Road, Singapore 260004, #03-139, which is a Housing Development Board (“HDB”) property (“the Queen’s Road HDB”).

Since the present dispute throws up several properties that were bought and sold at different times by the Parties, it is helpful to set out a chronology of the events that are not in dispute between the Parties, based on the evidence that is before the court:¹⁷

Date	Event	Remarks
28 Apr 1995	The Defendant sold her 3-room HDB flat situated at Block 83, Bedok North Road, #02-336, Singapore 460083 (“the 3-room flat”).	The Defendant received cash from the sale proceeds in the amount of $72,894.51.
No exact date available	The Defendant bought a 3 ½-room HDB flat situated at Block 83, Bedok North Road, #04-376, Singapore 460083 (“the 3 ½-room flat”).	It was bought immediately after the sale of the 3-room flat.
28 Dec 1995	The Parties’ marriage was solemnised under Syariah law.
26 Nov 199718	The Parties purchased a unit of Kemayan Riverview/Riverria Condovilla situated at Block MG3 Aronia, #08-10, Johor Bahru, Malaysia (“the Riverria condominium”).	It was purchased at a price of RM408,000. No bank loan was taken. It was not sold until 2015.
24 Dec 199719	The Plaintiff’s business was incorporated and registered.
22 Oct 1998	The Defendant sold her 3 ½-room flat.	The Defendant received cash from the sale proceeds in the amount of $83,447.84.
Nov 1998	The Defendant stopped working.
23 Apr 199920	The Plaintiff sold his mansionette situated at Block 54B, Jurong West Street 42, #04-173, Singapore 2264 (“the Jurong mansionette”).	It was sold at the price of $366,000. The Plaintiff received $197,475.53 from the sale of the Jurong mansionette.
26 May 199921	The Parties purchased a unit of Kondominium Petrie situated at Jalan Tengku Petrie Satu, #04-07, Johor Bahru, Malaysia (“the Petrie condominium”).	It was purchased for a total sum of RM560,000.22 No bank loan was taken. It was not sold until 2015.
10 Dec 1999	The Parties purchased the Changi Court property.	It was purchased for $665,000.23 For the initial acquisition of the property, the Defendant paid $7,700 through her Central Provident Fund (“CPF”) and the Plaintiff paid $57,300 through his CPF.24 A housing loan of about $422,000 was taken by the Parties.25 The rest was probably paid through cash. This property was repossessed by United Overseas Bank (“UOB”) in November 2016 and subsequently sold.
4 Dec 2003	The Parties purchased the Toh Crescent property.	It was bought for $1.75m26 and the Plaintiff spent $1.2m on rebuilding the property.27 Credit facilities of about $1.7m were taken out by the Parties.28 This property was repossessed by UOB in November 2016.
22 Jun 2007	The Plaintiff purchased a unit of the One KL Condominium situated at Jalan Pinang City Centre, Unit 5-F, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, under the joint names of the Plaintiff and the son.29	It was purchased for RM3,942,000.30
May 2008	The Parties purchased the Aston Residence.	It was bought for $2.75m.31 A loan of about $2.2m was taken by the Parties.32 This property was primarily rented out after it was bought. It was sold to a third party in June 2016 but the sale proceeds are being held as stakeholders’ monies pending the present decision or consent of the Parties.33
22 Aug 200834	The Parties purchased a condominium situated at 10 Simei Rise, #02-26, Singapore 528804 (“the Changi Rise condominium”).	It was bought for $617,000.35 A loan of $431,900 was taken out from UOB by the Parties.36
28 Aug 2008	The Parties purchased a condominium situated at 3 Sandilands Road, #05-04, Singapore 546066 (“the Kovan condominium”).	It was bought for $408,000.
2009	The Parties sold the Kovan condominium.37
24 Sep 2009	The Parties purchased the Queen’s Road HDB.	It was bought for $250,000.38 The Plaintiff paid $870 through his CPF39 and the Parties took a loan of about $200,000 from Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited.40 The Queen’s Road HDB was rented out after its purchase, with all of the rental proceeds collected by the Plaintiff.41
Oct 2009	The Parties sold the Changi Rise condominium.42	It was sold for $735,000.43

The submissions of the Parties The Plaintiff’s case

In relation to the disputed properties, the Plaintiff seeks declarations for the vesting in him of a proportionate percentage of the beneficial interest in these properties, commensurate with his financial contribution. Further, where the Plaintiff is the 100% beneficial owner of the property, for the property to be transferred to his sole name if it has not yet been sold, or for him to be at sole liberty to deal with 100% of the sale proceeds if it has already been sold.

In this connection, the Plaintiff submits that he is effectively the sole contributor of all payments (including the purchase price and all outgoings) for the disputed properties. The Defendant had made no financial contribution to the disputed properties except for a nominal payment of $7,700 from her CPF in the acquisition of the Changi Court property.⁴⁴ Accordingly, the Plaintiff submits that he is (or was, depending on whether the relevant property has been sold) the 98.85% beneficial owner of the Changi Court property and the sole beneficial owner of the other three properties. Since these disputed properties are held in the Parties’ joint names, on a resulting trust analysis, the Defendant holds the disputed properties (or the proceeds) on trust for him.⁴⁵

In addition, the Plaintiff submits that the Defendant, by refusing to sign certain documents in relation to the re-financing of the disputed properties, had acted in breach of her duties as a trustee. The Plaintiff suffered damages in the form of losses to his company and personal finances, and thus seeks to claim the same from her.⁴⁶

The Defendant’s case

The Defendant submits that it is unmeritorious and/or duplicitous and/or not within the proper administration of justice for the High Court, as a civil court, to determine matters concerning the Parties’ divorce, including the issue of how their matrimonial properties should be divided, given that the Parties were married under Syariah law and that their divorce has been registered at the Syariah Court.⁴⁷

In the alternative, the Defendant submits the following: It is unnecessary and superfluous to determine the Parties’ interest in the disputed...