UOB v Giok Bie Jao: Resulting Trust, Property Ownership & Balance Sale Proceeds Dispute
In United Overseas Bank Ltd v Giok Bie Jao and others, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute over the balance sale proceeds of a property. United Overseas Bank initiated an interpleader action due to conflicting claims between Giok Bie Jao, Jaury Jacob, and Jimmy Jonathan. The central issue was whether a resulting trust existed in favor of Jimmy Jonathan regarding the property, with Jaury Jacob contesting this claim. The court determined that Jaury Jacob had a 95% beneficial interest in the property, with Jimmy Jonathan holding the remaining 5%. The balance sale proceeds were ordered to be distributed accordingly. The claim was for determination of beneficial ownership under a resulting trust.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Jaury Jacob; Jaury's beneficial interest in Ocean Park was declared to be 95%, and Jimmy Jonathan's beneficial interest was declared to be 5%.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning a dispute over balance sale proceeds from a property sale, focusing on resulting trust and beneficial ownership.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Overseas Bank Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Giok Bie Jao | Respondent | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | Tan Hee Joek |
| Jaury Jacob | Respondent | Individual | Won | Won | Wong Soo Chih |
| Jimmy Jonathan | Respondent | Individual | Partial | Partial | Tan Hee Joek |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Hee Joek | Tan See Swan & Co |
| Wong Soo Chih | Ho, Wong & Partners |
4. Facts
- UOB was the mortgagee of a property known as 530 East Coast Road, #18-04 Ocean Park, Singapore.
- UOB exercised its power of sale over the property following a default on the repayment of the loan.
- The property was sold for $1,650,000, leaving a balance of $1,092,086.70 after settling outstanding sums due to UOB.
- Conflicting views arose regarding the distribution of the balance sale proceeds.
- Jimmy Jonathan claimed beneficial ownership of the property based on a resulting trust.
- Jaury Jacob contested Jimmy's claim, asserting that he provided the purchase money.
- The purchase price of Ocean Park was funded by the proceeds of sale of Mandarin Gardens.
5. Formal Citations
- United Overseas Bank Ltd v Giok Bie Jao and others, Originating Summons No 514 of 2010, [2012] SGHC 56
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| UOB exercised its power of sale over the Ocean Park property. | |
| UOB filed Originating Summons No 514 of 2010. | |
| Jimmy Jonathan was joined as a party to the proceedings. | |
| Judgment issued by the High Court. | |
| Jaury Jacob purchased an apartment at King’s Mansion. | |
| King’s Mansion was subsequently sold. | |
| Jaury Jacob purchased an apartment at Shelford Road. | |
| Jaury Jacob sold the apartment at Shelford Road. | |
| Mandarin Gardens was purchased in the sole name of Jimmy Jonathan. | |
| Jimmy Jonathan transferred one-half share of Mandarin Gardens to Jaury Jacob. | |
| Cheque was issued from the DBS account for payment towards acquisition of Ocean Park. | |
| Sale of Mandarin Gardens was completed. | |
| Three cheques were issued from the DBS account for the purchase of Ocean Park. |
7. Legal Issues
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that a resulting trust existed, with Jaury Jacob holding a 95% beneficial interest and Jimmy Jonathan holding a 5% beneficial interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Purchase money resulting trust
- Rebuttal of presumption of resulting trust
- Beneficial ownership
- Related Cases:
- [1996] AC 669
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
- (1788) 30 ER 42
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court clarified the distinction between the legal and evidential burdens of proof in establishing a resulting trust.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Legal burden of proof
- Evidential burden of proof
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
- Distribution of Balance Sale Proceeds
9. Cause of Actions
- Determination of Beneficial Ownership
- Interpleader
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Property Disputes
- Trust Disputes
11. Industries
- Banking
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd v Ding Pei Chai and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 489 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of interpleader relief under Order 17 of the Rules of Court. |
| De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell, Limited | King's Bench | Yes | [1936] 2 KB 164 | England and Wales | Cited to support the purpose of interpleader relief. |
| Dyer v Dyer | Court of Exchequer | Yes | (1788) 30 ER 42 | England and Wales | Cited as the classic statement of law on purchase money resulting trust. |
| Peh Eng Leng v Pek Eng Leong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 1 SLR(R) 939 | Singapore | Cited with approval and followed in relation to the principle of resulting trust. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | England and Wales | Cited for the modern-day authority on resulting trust. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited with approval in relation to the principle of resulting trust. |
| Hohol v Hohol | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [1981] VR 221 | Australia | Cited for the principle that intention may be found or inferred from conduct. |
| Shephard v Cartwright | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] 1 AC 431 | England and Wales | Cited for the type of evidence admissible to rebut a presumption of resulting trust. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between legal and evidential burdens of proof. |
| Calverley v Green | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1984] 155 CLR 242 | Australia | Cited for the principle that assumption of liability under a loan can constitute a direct contribution. |
| Lee Tso Fong v Kwok Wai Sun & anor | Court of First Instance | Yes | [2008] 4 HKC 36 | Hong Kong | Cited for the approach taken by the Hong Kong Court of First Instance on the burden of proof. |
| Constantine Line v Imperial Smelting Corp | House of Lords | Yes | [1942] AC 154 | England and Wales | Cited for the general rule that proof rests on he who affirms, not he who denies. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Evidence Act Cap 97, Rev Ed 1997 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting trust
- Beneficial ownership
- Purchase money
- Mortgagee sale
- Interpleader
- Balance sale proceeds
- Provenance of funds
- DBS account
- HSBC account
- Mandarin Gardens
- Ocean Park
15.2 Keywords
- Resulting Trust
- Property Ownership
- Mortgagee Sale
- Interpleader
- Singapore High Court
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Property
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Trust Law
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure