Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo: Resulting Trust & Property Ownership Dispute

Loo Chay Sit appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of the Estate of Loo Chay Loo, represented by Mdm Chen Tsui Yu and Chen John-son, regarding the ownership of a property at 7 Margate Road. Loo Chay Sit claimed the property was held on a resulting trust for him as he allegedly paid for it. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that Loo Chay Sit failed to prove he paid for the property, and the Estate was entitled to rely on the presumption of indefeasibility of title.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning a property ownership dispute. Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient evidence to establish a resulting trust.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Loo Chay SitAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceasedRespondentTrustCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Zhulkarnain Abdul RahimRodyk & Davidson LLP
Low Chai ChongRodyk & Davidson LLP
Mark SeahRodyk & Davidson LLP
Chiah Kok KhunWee Swee Teow & Co
Diana HoWee Swee Teow & Co

4. Facts

  1. Loo Chay Sit claimed the property was held by the Estate of Loo Chay Loo on a resulting trust for him.
  2. The property was registered in Loo Chay Loo’s name.
  3. Loo Chay Sit alleged he paid for the property.
  4. Documentary evidence suggested Loo Chay Loo had paid for the property.
  5. Loo Chay Sit withdrew approximately $193,400 from his LCLK account between 1976 and 1978.
  6. Receipts showed $105,010.65 was paid from Loo Chay Loo’s account with LCLK towards the property.
  7. Loo Chay Sit admitted $113,000 of the $193,400 was repaid to him in 1980.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased, CA 30/2009, [2009] SGCA 47
  2. Tan Chan Tee v Chen Tsui Yu, , [2009] SGHC 36

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Business partnership entered into between Loo Siong Loo and Loo Chay Sit.
Loo Chay Loo joined the business partnership after National Service.
Loo Chay Sit negotiated the purchase of 7 Margate Road.
Payment of $19,500 made for the purchase of 7 Margate Road.
Payment of $85,510.65 made for the completion of purchase of 7 Margate Road.
Payment of $7,150.50 made for solicitor's fees and disbursements.
Property at 7 Margate Road conveyed to Loo Chay Loo.
Loo Chay Sit moved into 7 Margate Road.
Loo Chay Loo married Mdm Chen and moved into 7 Margate Road.
Loo Chay Sit moved out of 7 Margate Road.
Property mortgaged to United Overseas Bank Ltd.
Property mortgaged to Asia Commercial Bank.
Loo Chay Loo and Mdm Chen migrated to the United States.
Loo Chay Sit and his parents moved into 7 Margate Road.
Loo Chay Loo arrested and charged for murder in the United States.
Loo Chay Sit initiated Suit 265/2005.
Loo Chay Loo passed away.
Loo Chay Sit obtained judgment in default of appearance.
Property transferred to Loo Chay Sit and sold for $4.8m.
Default judgment set aside.
Counterclaim filed for the sale proceeds of the Property.
Respondent obtained an “unless order” against the appellant.
Judgment reserved.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to prove that he had provided the purchase moneys for the Property so as to establish a resulting trust in his favour.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proof of payment
      • Presumption of indefeasibility of title
  2. Burden of Proof
    • Outcome: The court held that the burden lies on the appellant to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it was he who had paid for the property.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Evidential burden
      • Legal burden
  3. Indefeasibility of Title
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondent is entitled to rely on the presumption of indefeasibility of title accorded to Loo Chay Loo as registered owner of the Property to discharge this burden.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Sale Proceeds of Property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Resulting Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Trusts
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Chan Tee v Chen Tsui YuHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 36SingaporeThe judgment under appeal; the Court of Appeal is reviewing the High Court's decision.
Tikan bin Sulaiman v ReginaSingapore Court of Criminal AppealYes[1953] MLJ 131SingaporeCited regarding the compatibility of common law standards of proof with the concepts of proof in the Evidence Act.
Liew Kaling v Public ProsecutorFederation of Malaya Court of AppealYes[1960] MLJ 306MalaysiaCited regarding the compatibility of common law standards of proof with the concepts of proof in the Evidence Act.
Looi Wooi Saik v Public ProsecutorFederation of Malaya Court of AppealYes[1962] MLJ 337MalaysiaCited regarding the compatibility of common law standards of proof with the concepts of proof in the Evidence Act.
Public Prosecutor v YuvarajPrivy CouncilYes[1969] 2 MLJ 89MalaysiaCited for the pronouncement of the Board on the continuing applicability of standards of proof in the local context.
Rishi Kesh Singh v The StateAllahabad High CourtYesAIR 1970 All 51IndiaCited for observations on the concepts of ‘proved’, ‘disproved’, and ‘not proved’.
Shrikishan v BhanwarlalRajasthan High CourtYesAIR 1974 Raj 96IndiaCited for the distinction between the words ‘disproved’ and ‘not proved’.
Late Shri Amar Singh v Doongar SinghRajasthan High CourtYesRLW 1997(1) Raj 210IndiaCited for observations on the classification of findings of facts into proved, disproved, and not proved.
Naval Kishore Somani v Poonam SomaniAndhra Pradesh High CourtYesAIR 1999 AP 1IndiaCited for the view that a fact which is not proved does not necessarily mean it is a false one.
Emperor v Shafi Ahmed Nabi AhmedBombay High CourtYes(1925) 31 Bom LR 515IndiaCited for the observation that “disproved” is “merely the converse” of “proved” and that “not proved” represents “a state of mind between two states of mind when you are unable to say precisely how the matter stands”.
Ranchhodbhai Somabhai v Babubhai BhailalbhaiGujerat High CourtYesAIR 1982 Guj 308IndiaCited for the legal burden of proof being embodied within s 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, whereas the burden of proof in relation to adducing evidence is encompassed within s 102 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting trust
  • Indefeasibility of title
  • Burden of proof
  • Lian Cheong (Loo Kee) (LCLK)
  • Margate Road property
  • Purchase moneys
  • Evidential burden
  • Legal burden
  • Balance of probabilities
  • Administratrix

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • property
  • ownership
  • Singapore
  • appeal
  • evidence
  • resulting trust
  • Loo Chay Sit
  • Loo Chay Loo
  • Estate

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Resulting Trust95
Trust Law85
Chancery and Equity70
Evidence60
Property Law50
Estate Law40

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Evidence
  • Civil Procedure