Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin Peng: Resulting Trusts & Joint Accounts
In Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin Peng, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim brought by Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin, as the executor of Lim Bee Bee's estate, against Goh Chin Peng, Bee Bee's boyfriend, regarding a joint bank account. The plaintiff argued for a resulting trust, claiming the funds should revert to Bee Bee's estate, while the defendant asserted his right to the funds as the surviving joint account holder. The court found that Bee Bee intended to gift the monies in the joint account to the defendant, ruling in favor of the defendant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Defendant
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Executor of deceased's estate claimed moneys in joint account from surviving joint account holder. Court found deceased intended to gift the money.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Tito Isaac, Justin Chan |
| Goh Chin Peng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Michael Loh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tito Isaac | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Justin Chan | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Michael Loh | Clifford Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Lim Bee Bee opened a UOB account, later converting it into a joint account with Goh Chin Peng.
- All the monies in the joint account were contributed by Lim Bee Bee.
- Lim Bee Bee and Goh Chin Peng lived together as boyfriend and girlfriend.
- Lim Bee Bee had previously made a will leaving everything to the plaintiff, but later added Goh Chin Peng to the joint account.
- The UOB account application form specified that either account holder was authorized to sign.
- Lim Bee Bee sold a property in Australia and deposited the proceeds into the UOB account.
- Goh Chin Peng lent $48,000 to Matchpoint, Lim Bee Bee's business.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin Peng, Suit 300/2007, [2008] SGHC 119
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim Bee Bee was born. | |
| Lim Bee Bee started working as an air stewardess with Singapore Airlines. | |
| Lim Bee Bee married Michael Cheong. | |
| Lim Bee Bee started a hair design and beauty salon business as a sole proprietor. | |
| Lim Bee Bee and Michael Cheong separated. | |
| Lim Bee Bee filed a petition for divorce. | |
| Lim Bee Bee made her first will, giving all her property to Michael Cheong. | |
| Lim Bee Bee and Michael Cheong divorced. | |
| Lim Bee Bee purchased a flat in Australia. | |
| The plaintiff started working full time at Matchpoint. | |
| Lim Bee Bee executed a new will, appointing the plaintiff as the sole executor and trustee and naming the plaintiff as the sole beneficiary of all her assets. | |
| Goh Chin Peng moved in with Lim Bee Bee. | |
| Bee Bee placed AUD$16,909.96 on a 12 month fixed deposit. | |
| Goh Chin Peng was added as a joint/alternate signatory to the UOB account. | |
| Goh Chin Peng issued a cheque for $48,000 to Matchpoint. | |
| Bee Bee made a withdrawal of AUD9,000. | |
| Bee Bee made a withdrawal of AUD3,000. | |
| Lim Bee Bee passed away. | |
| Goh Chin Peng proposed to split the balance in the UOB joint account between himself and the plaintiff equally. | |
| Goh Chin Peng withdrew all his offers. | |
| Anniversary of Lim Bee Bee's death. | |
| Goh Chin Peng went to the sea to throw some flowers as Bee Bee’s ashes were scattered at sea. | |
| Goh Chin Peng moved out. | |
| The plaintiff gave the defendant notice to move out. | |
| The defendant moved out. | |
| The defendant moved out to avoid a nasty dispute. | |
| The defendant moved out to avoid a nasty dispute. | |
| Trial took place. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Presumption of Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the presumption of resulting trust was rebutted by evidence showing that the deceased intended to gift the monies in the joint account to the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Rebuttal of presumption
- Intention to gift
- Right of Survivorship
- Outcome: The court held that the terms and conditions of the joint account indicated that the surviving account holder was entitled to the monies in the account.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Beneficial interest
- Joint account terms
8. Remedies Sought
- Return of monies in joint account to the estate of Lim Bee Bee
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for monies in joint account based on resulting trust
10. Practice Areas
- Trusts
- Estate Planning
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Hairdressing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Niles v Lake | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1947] 2 D.L.R. 248 | Canada | Cited regarding the principle that a survivor became the legal owner of the joint bank account, the survivor held it on resulting trust for the estate as the deceased joint account holder had contributed all the money that went into the joint account and there was no evidence to show that the survivor was to get any beneficial interest. |
| Saylor v Madsen Estate | Ontario Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] D.L.R. (4th) 597 | Canada | Cited for its discussion of the instances when a presumption of resulting trust might arise, the role of presumptions, and the evidential value of bank documents to ascertain the parties’ intention. |
| Low Gim Siah v Low Geok Khim | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR 795 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that bank documents should not be assigned presumptive value when ascertaining the intention of a party. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] SGCA 54 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in the case of bank accounts held and operated jointly by persons in the established categories of relationships, there will be a strong inference that the rule of survivorship is intended to apply. |
| Tan Seng Pow v Tan Seng Hock | High Court | Yes | [1992] SGHC 104 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof in cases involving joint bank accounts and the intention of the deceased. |
| Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus @ Muriel Ester De Jesus Collars & Anor v Sandra Audrey Jude Collars | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 110 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof in cases involving joint bank accounts and the intention of the deceased. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting trust
- Joint account
- Right of survivorship
- Beneficial interest
- Intention to gift
- Survivorship clause
15.2 Keywords
- trusts
- joint accounts
- survivorship
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Banking
- Estate Law
17. Areas of Law
- Trust Law
- Resulting Trusts
- Equity