Re Estate of Chong Siew Kum: Resulting Trusts, Presumption of Advancement & Limitation Act

In the High Court of Singapore, Andrew Ang JC presided over the case of Re Estate of Chong Siew Kum, deceased, on 28 February 2005, involving a dispute between the children of the deceased, Chong Siew Kum, over the beneficial ownership of two properties, the Ringwood property and the Balestier property. The plaintiff, Chia Kin Tuck, sought a declaration that the properties were held in trust for the estate of Chong. The defendants, Chia Ee Moey (first defendant), Tse Sai Chee (second defendant), and Chai Cheo Moey (third defendant), counterclaimed, asserting their beneficial ownership. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, declared the Ringwood property to be owned by the plaintiff, first, and second defendants as tenants-in-common, and the Balestier property to be solely owned by the third defendant. The court also addressed counterclaims related to the return of moneys.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claims dismissed; counterclaims of first, second, and third defendants allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case concerning resulting trusts, presumption of advancement between mother and children, and the Limitation Act, in a dispute over property distribution.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chia Kin TuckPlaintiffIndividualClaims DismissedLostKoh Tien Hua, Liaw Jin Poh
Chia Ee MoeyDefendantIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartialAlan Shankar, Lim Poh Choo
Tse Sai CheeDefendantIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartialAlan Shankar, Lim Poh Choo
Chai Cheo MoeyDefendantIndividualCounterclaim Allowed in PartPartialAlan Shankar, Lim Poh Choo

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership
Liaw Jin PohJ P Liaw and Co
Alan ShankarAlan Shankar and Lim
Lim Poh ChooAlan Shankar and Lim

4. Facts

  1. Tse Hoo Sun died in 1946, leaving behind his widow, Chong Siew Kum, and six young children.
  2. Chong Siew Kum managed the family business, Hoo Sun Sail & Flag Maker, after her husband's death.
  3. In 1963, Chong Siew Kum bought the Ringwood property in the joint names of three of her sons.
  4. In 1965, Chong Siew Kum purchased the Balestier property in the name of her daughter, Chai Cheo Moey.
  5. In 1992, Chong Siew Kum bought the Moh Guan property in the joint names of Weng Tuck and Chia Sek Cheong.
  6. Chong Siew Kum died on 5 April 1996, leaving a will in which she appointed the plaintiff and the first defendant as her executors and trustees.
  7. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the Ringwood and Balestier properties were held in trust for Chong's estate.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Estate of Chong Siew Kum, deceased, OS 554/2002, [2005] SGHC 41

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tse Hoo Sun died.
Chong Siew Kum bought the Ringwood property.
Chong Siew Kum made her four sons 'partners' in Hoo Sun.
Chong Siew Kum purchased the Balestier property.
The second defendant and Ng Chee retired from partnership in Hoo Sun.
There was a fist fight between the plaintiff and Ng Chee.
Agreement between Chong Siew Kum and Ng Chee signed.
The first defendant was made a joint tenant of the Ringwood property.
Chong Siew Kum bought the Moh Guan property.
The third defendant requested the plaintiff to place $350,000 of her moneys on fixed deposit on her behalf but in the names of the plaintiff and the first defendant.
The plaintiff and the first defendant placed the sum of $350,000 with Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Ltd.
The first defendant entrusted the plaintiff with a sum of $30,000 from her bank account for the plaintiff to place the same on fixed deposit.
The third defendant entrusted the plaintiff with another $20,000 for placement upon fixed deposit.
Chong Siew Kum died.
Chong Siew Kum's will was dated.
The first and second defendants severed the joint tenancy in respect of the Ringwood property.
Chia Sek Cheong died.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by the presumption of advancement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rebuttal of presumption of resulting trust
      • Purchase in another's name
    • Related Cases:
      • [1998] SGHC 67
  2. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court held that the presumption of advancement applied as Chong stood in loco parentis to her children.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Mother and adult children
      • Standing in loco parentis
  3. Limitation of Actions
    • Outcome: The court found that the counterclaims were not time-barred as they were actions by beneficiaries under a trust, except for the $20,000 claim.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Time-barred counterclaims
      • Action for return of money had and received
      • Action by beneficiaries under trust

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that properties are held in trust
  2. Order for sale of property
  3. Withdrawal of caveat
  4. Return of moneys with interest

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Trust
  • Return of Moneys

10. Practice Areas

  • Estate Planning
  • Trust Litigation
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ang Toon Teck v Ang Poon SinHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 67SingaporeCited for the legal position on resulting trusts and the rebuttal of the presumption by evidence of intention to benefit or by the presumption of advancement.
In the matter of De Visme, a Person of Unsound MindN/AYesIn the matter of De Visme, a Person of Unsound Mind (1863) 2 De G J & S 17; 46 ER 280N/ACited as authority for the traditional view that a presumption of advancement does not arise between a mother and her son or daughter.
Bennet v BennetN/AYes(1876) 10 Ch D 474N/ACited as authority for the traditional view that a presumption of advancement does not arise between a mother and her son or daughter.
Sayre v HughesN/AYes(1868) LR 5 Eq 376N/ACited as a case that suggested the opposite conclusion to the traditional view, regarding presumption of advancement between mother and child.
Nelson v NelsonHigh CourtYes(1995) 132 ALR 133AustraliaCited as a case where the High Court of Australia inclined in favour of a presumption of advancement between mother and child.
Sekhon v AlissaN/AYes[1989] 2 FLR 94N/ACited as a case where a presumption of resulting trust applied where a mother provided the major portion of the purchase moneys for a property bought in the daughter’s name.
Air Jamaica Ltd v Joy CharltonN/AYes[1999] 1 WLR 1399N/ACited for the principle that the burden falls on the plaintiff to prove that when Chong paid for the Ringwood and Balestier properties, she had no intention of benefiting the children into whose names the properties were transferred.
Chua Cheow Tien v Chua Geok EngN/AYes[1965–1968] SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principle that admissible evidence in rebuttal is limited to acts, circumstances and declarations leading to or forming part of the transaction or so immediately following and connected with it as in effect to be contemporaneous with or form part of it.
Shephard v CartwrightN/AYes[1955] AC 431N/ACited for the principle that admissible evidence in rebuttal is limited to acts, circumstances and declarations leading to or forming part of the transaction or so immediately following and connected with it as in effect to be contemporaneous with or form part of it.
Grey (Lord) v Grey (Lady)N/AYes(1677) 2 Swans 594 at 600; 36 ER 742 at 744N/ACited for the principle that a son who had permitted his father to continue to receive the profits of the property in question did so as an “act of reverence and good manners” and that that fact was insufficient to rebut the presumption of advancement.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 6(1) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 22(1)(b) Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 68 Women’s Charter (Cap 353, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting trust
  • Presumption of advancement
  • In loco parentis
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Tenants-in-common
  • Caveat
  • Matriarch
  • Trust property
  • Limitation Act

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • property
  • estate
  • will
  • family
  • resulting trust
  • presumption of advancement
  • limitation act

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Family Law
  • Succession

17. Areas of Law

  • Trusts
  • Resulting Trusts
  • Presumption of Advancement
  • Succession and Wills
  • Limitation of Actions