Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit: Limitation Act & Remedial Constructive Trusts
In Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit (No 2), the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by Mdm Ching, as the executrix of Tan Geok Tee's estate, against Liu Cho Chit, seeking to recover S$1,368,420.71. The claim was based on events dating back to 1981, alleging failure of consideration and mistake of fact related to a property transaction. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Woo Bih Li, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the action was time-barred under the Limitation Act and that the plaintiff was not the correct party to bring the suit. The court also rejected the argument for a remedial constructive trust.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Executrix Ching Mun Fong sues Liu Cho Chit to recover funds, alleging failure of consideration and mistake. The court dismissed the claim, citing limitation issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Michael Khoo SC, Josephine Low |
| Liu Cho Chit (No 2) | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Woo Tchi Chu, Harpal Singh, Ee Von The |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Khoo SC | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Josephine Low | Michael Khoo & Partners |
| Woo Tchi Chu | Robert WH Wang & Woo |
| Harpal Singh | Harpal Wong & M Seow |
| Ee Von The | Harpal Wong & M Seow |
4. Facts
- In 1972, Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd purchased a large parcel of land.
- The defendant was a shareholder and managing director of Peng Ann at the time.
- In 1973, Peng Ann agreed to sell three lots of the land to Collin Investment Pte Ltd (CIP), one of Tan's family companies.
- The defendant and Tan also orally agreed to jointly develop a portion of the land.
- The joint venture did not materialize.
- In 1981, Tan agreed to buy Mdm Lim's share in the property for S$3.8m.
- Tan paid the defendant US$642,451.04 as part payment.
- The Court of Appeal found that Mdm Lim had not established that she had acquired an interest in the property.
5. Formal Citations
- Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit (No 2), Suit 862/1998, [2000] SGHC 199
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreement for sale and purchase of land made by Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd. | |
| Scheduled completion date for the sale and purchase of land. | |
| Two lots of land gazetted by the Government for acquisition. | |
| Sale and purchase agreement made between Peng Ann and Collin Investment Pte Ltd. | |
| Sale under the main agreement completed. | |
| Three lots of land acquired by the Government. | |
| Tan agreed to buy Mdm Lim’s share at the price of S$3.8m net of tax. | |
| Tan handed to the defendant two cashier’s orders amounting to the sum of US$642,451.04. | |
| Defendant signed a letter prepared by Tan’s general manager in Singapore. | |
| Fook Gee Finance Co Ltd instituted an action against the defendant claiming the sum of US$642,451.04. | |
| Mdm Lim instituted action against Lee Tat, Tan, Lee Kai and Collin claiming the balance of the purchase price. | |
| Tan Geok Tee passed away. | |
| Trial of the 1983 and 1984 actions started. | |
| Trial of the 1983 and 1984 actions ended. | |
| Judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered. | |
| Plaintiff instituted proceedings in the present action. | |
| Amended statement of claim. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether executrix and agent correct parties in these proceedings
- Outcome: The court found that the claims should have been made by Lee Tat against Mdm Lim and not by Mdm Ching, as executrix of Tan’s estate, against Liu.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether unreasonable delay or negligence by plaintiff in pursuing claims
- Outcome: The court found that there had been unreasonable delay or negligence in pursuing the claims.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether action time-barred due to mistake
- Outcome: The court found that the mistake was discovered by Tan by 27 July 1983, alternatively, by 7 October 1987 or by 1 February 1989. Even if it was not in fact discovered by then, it could with reasonable diligence have been discovered.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether action time-barred due to total failure of consideration
- Outcome: The court found that such causes of action are 'founded on a contract' for the purpose of s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163) and would be time-barred long before the commencement of the present action on 4 June 1998.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether action time-barred regarding remedial constructive trusts
- Outcome: The court had doubts as to whether the doctrine of remedial constructive trusts should apply in Singapore and was satisfied that on the particular facts, the plaintiff had failed to establish such a trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether doctrine of remedial constructive trusts applies in Singapore
- Outcome: The court expressed doubts as to whether the doctrine of remedial constructive trusts should apply in Singapore but did not make a definitive ruling.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of S$1,368,420.71
9. Cause of Actions
- Constructive Trust
- Mistake
- Total Failure of Consideration
- Moneys Had and Received
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited as background to the facts of the case. |
| Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank & Anor | Privy Council | Yes | [1975] AC 581 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the doctrine of res judicata. |
| Gleeson v J Wippell & Co | Unknown | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 501 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the justice of refusing to permit a plaintiff who has failed to take an obvious point against the defendant to have a second bite at the cherry in order to take that point. |
| Fook Gee Finance Co Ltd v Liu Cho Chit and another action | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 121 | Singapore | Cited regarding the Court of Appeal's decision that Mdm Lim had not established that she had acquired an interest in the property. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding remedial constructive trusts. |
| Sinclair v Brougham | House of Lords | Yes | [1914] AC 398 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding resulting trusts. |
| Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | [1981] Ch 105 | England and Wales | Cited regarding constructive trusts and mistake. |
| Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 QB 391 | England and Wales | Cited regarding remedial constructive trusts. |
| A-G v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd, third party) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] Ch 439 | England and Wales | Cited regarding restitutionary damages for breach of contract. |
| PP v Intra Group (Holdings) Co Inc | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 803 | Singapore | Cited regarding the doctrine of remedial constructive trusts. |
| Snepp v US | United States Supreme Court | Yes | [1980] 444 US 507 | United States | Cited regarding restitutionary damages for breach of contract. |
| Scan Electronics (S) Pte Ltd v Syed Ali Redha Alsagoff | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 13 | Singapore | Cited regarding the defence of laches. |
| Lindsay Petroleum Co v Hurd | Privy Council | Yes | [1874] 5 LR PC 221 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the defence of laches. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Executrix
- Estate
- Constructive Trust
- Limitation Act
- Total Failure of Consideration
- Mistake of Fact
- Remedial Constructive Trust
- Laches
- Res Judicata
15.2 Keywords
- Limitation Act
- Constructive Trust
- Restitution
- Singapore
- Property Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Equity
- Limitation of Actions
- Restitution
- Trusts
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Equity
- Limitation of Actions
- Restitution
- Trusts