Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun
Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD |
Judgment Date | 19 August 2022 |
Neutral Citation | [2022] SGHC(A) 30 |
Citation | [2022] SGHC(A) 30 |
Published date | 24 August 2022 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 130 of 2021 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai and Samuel Soo Kuok Heng (Drew & Napier LLC) |
Defendant Counsel | Lok Vi Ming SC and Qabir Singh Sandhu (LVM Law Chambers LLC) (instructed), Chong Xin Yi and Tan Lena (Gloria James Civetta & Co) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Appeals,Leave to raise new points,O 56A r 9(5)(b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed),Contract,Intention to create legal relations,Loan agreements,Gifts,Conditions attached,Trusts,Quistclose trusts,Threshold of proof |
Hearing Date | 22 July 2022 |
Court | High Court Appellate Division (Singapore) |
This appeal concerned a dispute between an unmarried couple over putative gifts made during the time of their relatively short relationship. It arose from the decision of a Judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Judge”) in
The background to this matter is stated more fully in the Judgment.
In essence, the parties met in March 2016, and, by May 2016, they became romantically involved. It bears highlighting that the respondent (“Mr Lyu”) was married at the time he and the appellant (“Ms Wei”) entered into their relationship. Mr Lyu remained married throughout, though his wife was in the process of obtaining a divorce from him. He wished to marry Ms Wei after his divorce and to formally start their life together as a married couple. In this connection, he had informed Ms Wei that upon his divorce, some of his assets would need to be transferred to his wife (see the Judgment at [44] and [49]).
During their relationship, Mr Lyu transferred substantial sums of money to Ms Wei. These sums were used to acquire assets in Ms Wei’s name, such as an apartment, as well as for various other purposes which did not result in the ownership of an unencumbered asset, such as to discharge a mortgage over Ms Wei’s apartment. After their relationship soured and ended, Mr Lyu sought to recover these assets and sums of money, the collective value of which he claimed was around S$8 million, though Ms Wei only admitted to receiving around S$7 million (see the Judgment at [7]). This disagreement is not salient.
There were
At trial, Mr Lyu’s overarching contention was that the transfers made to Ms Wei were not gifts, and had only been made with a view to building their life together as a married couple. Ms Wei was thus not entitled to retain them once their relationship came to an end. In response, Ms Wei’s general defence was that she received them as gifts of love, and was therefore entitled to them
The Judge found substantially for Mr Lyu and allowed eight of his ten claims. Only the two claims relating to the money used to discharge the Bartley mortgage and the Rolex watch were dismissed (see the Judgment at [62]–[67] and [91]–[93] respectively).
In arriving at his decision, the Judge took into account the parties’ oral evidence on the stand, text messages, and various pieces of evidence which shed light on the context of their communications. In general, such evidence led the Judge to the conclusion that Mr Lyu did not intend – by most of his transfers of funds – to benefit Ms Wei gratuitously.
Grounds of the appealMs Wei appealed the Judge’s decision in respect of all eight claims on which Mr Lyu succeeded. Mr Lyu did not appeal the two claims on which he failed and, so, only eight claims were in issue before us.
For present purposes, Ms Wei’s grounds of her appeal are conveniently grouped around two subsets of those eight claims:
Before turning to explain the issues in respect of each group, we pause to highlight that in the Appellant’s Case1 as well as the Appellant’s Skeletal Arguments,2 there was some indication that Ms Wei’s appeal in respect of the Cairnhill option would raise issues which would straddle both groups. However, at the hearing before us, her counsel, Mr Mahesh Rai (“Mr Rai”), confirmed that this was not the case and that the Cairnhill option only fell within the first group, or what he described as the “resulting trust assets”. Accordingly, we only considered her appeal in relation to the Cairnhill option insofar as it related to the
In respect of the claims falling within the first group, Ms Wei in this appeal abandoned her assertion that the sums used to acquire these assets were transferred to her as gifts
[emphasis in original in underline; emphasis added in italics]
On this footing, Ms Wei claimed that the evidence should be read to disclose a donative intention on Mr Lyu’s part to benefit Ms Wei with at least 50% of the beneficial interest in the D’Leedon apartment. In respect of this, Ms Wei recognised that this was not an issue canvassed at trial given that her case was that the money had been gifted to her
ORDER 56A
APPEALS TO APPELLATE DIVISION
…
Preparation of Cases (O. 56A, r. 9) …
this should be stated clearly in the Case, and if the new point mentioned in sub-paragraph (
b ) involves the introduction of fresh evidence, this should also be stated clearly in the Case and an application for leave must be made under Rule 17 to adduce the fresh evidence.
Preliminarily, it bears calling to attention that the Appellant’s Case only expressly sought leave under O 56A r 9(5)(
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Gomez, Kevin Bennett v Bird & Bird ATMD LLP and another
...and could not have assisted the appellant even if he had attempted to seek leave under that provision: see Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun [2022] SGHC(A) 30 at [25]. Second, if this claim had been pleaded by the appellant, there would have been evidence adduced and submissions made by the parties, an......
-
Gangadhara Brhmendra Srikanth Maroju v Epoch Minerals Pte Ltd
...EMPL. The evidence of exclusivity of purpose for a Quistclose trust to arise was also satisfied (see generally Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun [2022] SGHC(A) 30 at [35]‒[52]). Mr Maroju had therefore not demonstrated to us that the Judge had erred in concluding, on the evidence before him, that the t......