Er Kok Yong v Tan Cheng Cheng: Beneficial Ownership of Property Dispute
Er Kok Yong and Lim Soon Hwa Lawrence sued Tan Cheng Cheng, Tan San San, and Keh Lay Hong, as co-administratrixes of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, claiming beneficial ownership of a property. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding insufficient evidence of a common intention constructive trust or a resulting trust. The court awarded costs to the defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs claimed beneficial ownership of a property registered under the deceased's name. The court dismissed the claim, finding insufficient evidence of common intention or resulting trust.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Er Kok Yong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Soon Hwa Lawrence | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Cheng Cheng | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| Tan San San | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| Keh Lay Hong | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs claimed beneficial ownership of a property registered in Spencer Tuppani's name.
- Plaintiffs alleged an oral agreement with Spencer to purchase the property with equal shares.
- Plaintiffs claimed to have contributed S$535,200 each towards the purchase price.
- An unexecuted trust deed declared Spencer held two-thirds of the beneficial interest for the Plaintiffs.
- Defendants denied the existence of a common intention or the Plaintiffs' contributions.
- Plaintiffs deleted WhatsApp group chat records relevant to the alleged agreement.
- The property was mortgaged, and the plaintiffs did not contribute to mortgage payments after Spencer's death.
5. Formal Citations
- Er Kok Yong and another v Tan Cheng Cheng (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) and others, Suit No 554 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Spencer became interested in purchasing the Property | |
| Spencer’s solicitors issued a cheque for the option fee | |
| Spencer’s solicitors issued cashier's order for the balance of the deposit and a cheque for the buyer’s stamp duty | |
| Amount owing to the sellers was further reduced | |
| A sum was added to the outstanding amount owed to the sellers | |
| The outstanding amount owed to the sellers was further reduced | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Lawrence paid cash to LegalStandard LLP | |
| Spencer’s solicitors issued cashier’s orders for the completion monies | |
| Spencer Tuppani passed away | |
| Meeting between Shyller, Mahtani and the Plaintiffs | |
| Meeting between Shyller, Mahtani and the Plaintiffs | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Trial continues | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Beneficial Ownership
- Outcome: The court ruled against the plaintiffs' claim of beneficial ownership.
- Category: Substantive
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence of a common intention to establish a constructive trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to establish a resulting trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Adverse Inferences
- Outcome: The court drew adverse inferences against the Plaintiffs due to the deletion of WhatsApp messages.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Trust
- Order for Execution of Documents
- Injunction
- Order for Accounts
- Damages
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Trust
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Trust Litigation
- Property Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam v Krishnavanny d/o Vaithilingam | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Dealt with two sets of legally significant events capable of bringing into existence an equitable interest in property: the purchase money resulting trust and the common intention constructive trust. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 669 | England and Wales | Equitable interests are not inherent in property, created and existing automatically and in parallel with legal interests. |
| Lai Hoon Woon (executor and trustee of the estate of Lai Thai Lok, deceased) v Lai Foong Sin and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 113 | Singapore | Referred to purchase price resulting trusts. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Explained that the presumption of resulting trust is based on a traditional common-sense presumption that, outside of certain relationships, an owner of property never intends to make a gift. |
| Calverley v Green | N/A | Yes | [1984] 155 CLR 242 | Australia | Payment of mortgage instalments was not a payment of the purchase price but a payment towards securing the release of the charge which the parties created over the property purchase. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | The critical question was whether the parties were in agreement, at the time of the acquisition of the property, as to what liability each party would undertake in respect of the mortgage. |
| Bertei v Feher | N/A | Yes | [2000] WASCA 165 | Australia | Cited regarding the parties’ intentions at the time the property is acquired, as to the ultimate source of the funds for purchase of that property. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Agreed with Lord Neuberger’s approach in Stack v Dowden where Lord Neuberger drew a distinction between an inferred and an imputed common intention. |
| Stack v Dowden | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 AC 432 | England and Wales | Drew a distinction between an inferred and an imputed common intention. |
| Pettitt v Pettitt | N/A | Yes | [1970] AC 777 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the distinction between inference and imputation. |
| Gissing v Gissing | N/A | Yes | [1971] AC 886 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the distinction between inference and imputation. |
| Grant v Edwards | N/A | Yes | [1986] Ch 638 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the distinction between inference and imputation. |
| Sumoi Paramesvaeri v Fleury, Jeffrey Gerard and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 302 | Singapore | The common intention constructive trust is an institutional constructive trust that arises by operation of law from the date of the circumstances giving rise to it. |
| Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd v Koh Ai Gek and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 908 | Singapore | The focus remains very much on the financial contributions of the parties. |
| Ong Chai Soon v Ong Chai Koon and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 457 | Singapore | Case involved a shophouse property registered in the sole name of the appellant. |
| Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 162 | Singapore | In practice the foremost claim that is put forward is usually the common intention constructive trust, with an alternative basis relied upon of a proprietary estoppel; the resulting trust is usually the backstop claim. |
| Soon Peck Wah v Woon Che Chye | N/A | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 430 | Singapore | Statements which were made out of court, and which are tendered in court as evidence of the truth of the content therein, are inadmissible as hearsay. |
| Chan Sze Ying v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2948 (Lee Chuen T’ng, intervener) | N/A | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 841 | Singapore | Statements which were made out of court, and which are tendered in court as evidence of the truth of the content therein, are inadmissible as hearsay. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) s 14(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 116 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) s 32(1)(j)(i) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Beneficial Ownership
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Resulting Trust
- Purchase Price
- Trust Deed
- Mortgage
- WhatsApp Group Chat
- Financial Contributions
- Oral Agreement
- Legal Title
15.2 Keywords
- Trust
- Property
- Beneficial Ownership
- Singapore
- High Court
- Civil Case
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trust Law | 75 |
| Constructive Trust | 70 |
| Resulting Trust | 70 |
| Adverse Inference | 65 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Equity | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Estoppel | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Trust Law
- Property Law
- Civil Litigation