Wang Xiaopu v Koh Mui Lee

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeLee Seiu Kin J
Judgment Date29 March 2023
Docket NumberSuit No 636 of 2020
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Wang Xiaopu
and
Koh Mui Lee and others

[2023] SGHC 73

Lee Seiu Kin J

Suit No 636 of 2020

General Division of the High Court

Land — Conveyance — Sale of judgment debtor's joint tenancy interest in matrimonial home to first defendant — Purchase of properties in second and third defendants' names using moneys from judgment debtor and first defendant's joint bank account — Whether share of matrimonial property was sold at undervalue — Whether properties were transferred to defendants to hinder, delay and/or defraud judgment debtor's creditors — Whether transfer was void and of no interest pursuant to s 73B Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) — Section 73B Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)

Personal Property — Ownership — Co-ownership — Moneys used from first defendant and judgment debtor's joint bank account — Transfer of moneys from first defendant and judgment debtor's joint bank account to third defendant — Purchase of properties in second and third defendants' names using moneys from judgment debtor and first defendant's joint bank account — Whether first defendant was sole owner of moneys in joint account — Whether presumption of resulting trust arose in judgment debtor's favour over his contributions into third defendant's account — Whether presumption of resulting trust arose in favour of judgment debtor over purchased properties

Personal Property — Passing of property — Sale of judgment debtor's joint tenancy interest in matrimonial home to first defendant — Transfer of moneys from first defendant and judgment debtor's joint bank account to third defendant — Purchase of properties in second and third defendants' names using moneys from judgment debtor and first defendant's joint bank account — Novation of judgment debtor's loans to companies and transfer of judgment debtor's company shares to first defendant — Whether properties were transferred to defendants to hinder, delay and/or defraud judgment debtor's creditors — Whether transactions were void and of no interest pursuant to s 73B Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) — Section 73B Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)

Trusts — Constructive trusts — Whether plaintiff's action relied on doctrine of constructive trusts

Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts — Transfer of moneys from first defendant and judgment debtor's joint bank account to third defendant — Purchase of properties in second and third defendants' names using moneys from judgment debtor and first defendant's joint bank account — Whether presumption of resulting trust arose in judgment debtor's favour over his contributions into third defendant's account — Whether presumption of resulting trust arose in favour of judgment debtor over purchased properties

Held, allowing the claim:

(1) To make out a cause of action under s 73B of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) (“CLPA”), the burden of proof lay on the plaintiff to establish that (a) there had been a conveyance of property; (b) this conveyance was made with the intent of defrauding creditors; and (c) the plaintiff was a person prejudiced by the foregoing conveyance. The defendant (who was generally the recipient of the property conveyed) would be able to defeat the action and retain the property if he could establish that (a) he had acquired the property for valuable consideration and in good faith, or for good consideration and in good faith; and (b) he did not have notice of the debtor's intent to defraud his creditors: at [71] and [72].

(2) For fraudulent intent to be made out, where the transfer was made for valuable consideration, it had to be shown that the transferor acted with the actual intent to defraud creditors and the transferee had notice of the transferor's fraudulent intention. Where the transfer had been made without any or with nominal consideration, the intention of the transferee was not relevant and it was only necessary to show that the transferor had an intent to defraud creditors, and constructive fraud could be raised in addition to actual fraud: at [73].

(3) Where there was evidence of financial contributions made by parties towards the purchase price of a property, this would give rise to the presumption of a resulting trust. If there was sufficient evidence of a common intention that parties should hold the beneficial interest of the property in a certain proportion, this would give rise to a common intention constructive trust which would override the presumption of a resulting trust. Should the evidence give rise to a presumed resulting trust but not a common intention constructive trust, if the evidence showed that the party who paid a larger share of the purchase price intended to benefit the other party with the entire amount he had paid, then he would be considered to have made a gift to the other party of the larger sum. If this gift was not established, the presumption of advancement could nevertheless operate to rebut the presumption of resulting trust: at [76] and [77].

(4) If Mdm Wang had intended to rely on fraud as the circumstance under which an institutional constructive trust was founded, she would have to plead fraud not in terms of fraud simpliciter but in terms of a situation whereby the defendant fraudulently relied on the informality of a transaction to deny the beneficial interest of the claimant. This had not been done: at [80].

(5) Mdm Wang had neither pleaded any cause of action that would justify the imposition of a remedial constructive trust in Dr Goh's favour nor relied on the doctrine of remedial constructive trusts: at [82].

(6) With respect to the OCBC 582 Moneys, there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Dr Goh had an interest in moneys transferred from bank accounts not belonging to him: at [87].

(7) Mdm Koh was not the sole owner of the moneys in the joint OCBC 501 Account. Dr Goh did not seem to have any problem getting large sums of money out of their joint accounts, Mdm Koh was not able to satisfactorily explain his access to the moneys and Mdm Koh's oral evidence (on which she solely relied) was unconvincing: at [90] to [98].

(8) There had hence been a conveyance of the sum of S$1,873,320.63 from the joint OCBC 501 account to Dr Jeremy's OCBC 582 Account: at [99].

(9) Dr Goh's transference of moneys into the OCBC 582 account had been done with the actual intent to defraud creditors and Dr Jeremy had notice of Dr Goh's fraudulent intention. Dr Goh had been very much involved in transactions involving the OCBC 582 Account, there had been a WhatsApp group chat message sent by Dr Michelle in a group chat comprising her and the rest of Dr Goh and Mdm Koh's children, stating that Dr Goh had said he was prepared to go bankrupt, divorce Mdm Koh and transfer all assets to them, and Dr Jeremy had not managed to explain why he had transferred S$18.465m to another account and disbursed S$15m of that sum to Dr Goh: at [101] to [110].

(10) As the relevant suit against Dr Goh had been commenced in 2015, this conveyance of moneys which occurred over the course of 2016 had prejudiced Mdm Wang as it would directly impact whether she would be able to enjoy the fruits of litigation in the event that she should succeed in her suit against Dr Goh and Dr Michelle: at [111].

(11) In the alternative, Mdm Wang had established that the money was held on trust for Dr Goh and Mdm Koh, proportionate to their contribution. The presumption of advancement did not arise: at [112] and [113].

(12) Given the finding that the funds in the OCBC 501 Account were jointly owned by Dr Goh and Mdm Koh, it stood to reason that Berth and Seascape, which were purchased using moneys from this account, were purchased by both Dr Goh and Mdm Koh. The evidence also gave rise to a strong inference that Mdm Koh had not acted alone in buying the properties: at [123] to [127].

(13) The purchase of Seascape in Dr Jeremy's name was voidable under s 73B of the CLPA. It appeared on a balance of probabilities that Dr Goh had made the gift of Seascape to Dr Jeremy with the intent to defraud his creditors and Dr Jeremy had notice of Dr Goh's intention to do so. As the sale and purchase agreement for Seascape was signed and the sale to Dr Jeremy was completed after the commencement of the relevant suits in which Mdm Wang was a litigant, she was hence a person prejudiced by the purchase: at [128] to [143].

(14) In the alternative, the presumption of resulting trust would arise in so far as Seascape was paid for using moneys jointly owned by Dr Goh and Mdm Koh. The evidence militated against any possibility that this was a gift and the presumption of advancement would also not apply. Dr Jeremy could not be considered the true owner of Seascape: at [144] to [149].

(15) The sale and purchase agreement for Berth was entered into in November 2014. The evidence was insufficient to suggest that Dr Goh had harboured any intention to defraud his creditors in November 2014: at [150] and [151].

(16) The presumption of resulting trust arose with respect to Berth such that the beneficial interest in the property fell to Dr Goh and Mdm Koh. They did not intend to gift Berth to Ms Melissa and the presumption of advancement did not arise to defeat the finding of a presumed resulting trust. The evidence suggested in fact that Dr Goh and Mdm Koh appeared in control of Berth and all that was done with it: at [152] to [165].

(17) The valuation provided by the defendants' expert valuer was preferable to the valuation of the plaintiff's expert valuer, such that 36 Cove Way was not found to be sold at an undervalue: at [186].

(18) Based on the entirety of the evidence, Dr Goh had been concerned about potential creditors and had acted to sell his share in 36 Cove Way to defraud potential creditors: at [187] to [193].

(19) The evidence suggested that Mdm Koh more likely than not had notice of Dr Goh's...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT