Koh Lau Keow v Attorney-General: Validity of Trust for Buddhist Temple and Vegetarian Women's Sanctuary

In Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General, the High Court of Singapore addressed the validity of a trust declared over a property used as a Buddhist temple and a sanctuary for Chinese vegetarian women. Koh Lau Keow, the first plaintiff, sought to set aside the trust, arguing it was a non-charitable purpose trust. Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed the action, holding that the trust was a valid charitable purpose trust, advancing religion and conferring sufficient public benefit. The plaintiffs' claim was therefore dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Action dismissed on the basis that the trust is a valid charitable purpose trust.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court upheld a trust for a Buddhist temple and sanctuary for Chinese vegetarian women, finding it a valid charitable trust.

1.7 Decision Date

18 August 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Defendant	Government Agency	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Zheng Shao Kai of Attorney-General’s Chambers Fu Qi Jing of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Koh Lau Keow	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Tang Hang Wu of Independent Practitioner Leonard Manoj Kumar Hazra of Damodara Hazra LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tay Yong Kwang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Zheng Shao Kai	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Fu Qi Jing	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Tang Hang Wu	Independent Practitioner
Leonard Manoj Kumar Hazra	Damodara Hazra LLP

4. Facts

Koh acquired the Property in 1948 to establish a temple and provide a home for the Aunts.
Koh and the Aunts were named as joint tenants of the Property.
A declaration of trust was executed on 12 October 1960 by Koh and the Aunts.
The Declaration of Trust stated the Property was to be used as a temple and a home for Chinese women vegetarians of the Buddhist faith.
Temple-related activities were conducted on the Property, including mass worship sessions and daily prayer recitals.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore reviewed the property tax exemption for the Property in 2005.
Koh wanted to terminate the Declaration of Trust and make provisions for the testamentary disposition of the Property.

5. Formal Citations

Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General, Originating Summons No 1021 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 155

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1917-01-01	Koh Lau Keow born in China.
1936-01-01	Koh Lau Keow came to Singapore.
1948-01-01	Koh Lau Keow acquired the Property.
1948-04-01	First unsuccessful application for property tax exemption.
1949-07-01	Second unsuccessful application for property tax exemption.
1960-05-01	Third application for property tax exemption.
1960-10-12	Declaration of Trust executed.
1970-04-01	One of the Aunts passed away.
1975-04-01	One of the Aunts passed away.
1976-06-01	The third Aunt retired as a trustee.
1992-01-01	Second plaintiff appointed as trustee.
2003-01-01	Sixth plaintiff appointed as trustee.
2005-01-01	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore reviewed the property tax exemption.
2012-10-19	Koh initially claimed in her affidavit.
2013-08-19	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of a Charitable Trust
- Outcome: The court held that the trust was a valid charitable purpose trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Public Benefit
  - Advancement of Religion
  - Relief of Poverty
- Related Cases:
  - (1804) 9 Ves Jr 399
  - [1960] Ch 232
  - [1891] 1 AC 531
  - [2001] 3 SLR(R) 335
  - [1923] 1 Ch 225
  - [1922] 2 Ch 479
  - [1909] 1 Ch 567
  - [1908] 1 AC 162
  - [1944] 1 AC 341
  - [1931] 2 KB 465
  - [1957] 1 WLR 1080
  - [1962] 1 Ch 832
  - [1945] 1 Ch 123
  - [1949] 1 AC 426
  - [1955] 1 AC 572
  - [1988] 2 SLR(R) 106
  - [1989] 2 WLR 1094

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the first plaintiff is the sole beneficial owner of the Property
Setting aside the trust

9. Cause of Actions

Setting aside a trust

10. Practice Areas

Trust Litigation
Charity Law
Religious Organizations

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Morice v Bishop of Durham	N/A	Yes	(1804) 9 Ves Jr 399	N/A	Cited for the principle that non-charitable purpose trusts are void because they violate the beneficiary principle.
In Re Endacott, Corpe (deceased) v Endacott	N/A	Yes	[1960] Ch 232	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust, not being a charitable trust, must have ascertained or ascertainable beneficiaries.
The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v John Frederick Pemsel	N/A	Yes	[1891] 1 AC 531	N/A	Cited for the four categories of charitable purposes: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community.
Re Will of Samuel Emily, deceased	N/A	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR(R) 335	Singapore	Cited for the Pemsel categories.
In Re Davis, Thomas v Davis	N/A	Yes	[1923] 1 Ch 225	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust is void if trustees can apply funds to purposes outside the Pemsel categories.
In Re Chapman, Hales v Attorney-General	N/A	Yes	[1922] 2 Ch 479	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust is void if trustees can apply funds to purposes outside the Pemsel categories.
In Re Davidson, Minty v Bourne	N/A	Yes	[1909] 1 Ch 567	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust is void if trustees can apply funds to purposes outside the Pemsel categories.
Weir and others v Crum-brown and others	N/A	Yes	[1908] 1 AC 162	N/A	Cited for the principle that a benignant construction will be placed upon charitable bequests.
Chichester Diocesan Fund and Board of Finance (Incorporated) v Simpson and others	N/A	Yes	[1944] 1 AC 341	N/A	Cited for the principle that an exegetical interpretation of the conjunction “or” is only possible if the words or phrases which the conjunction joins connote the same thing and are interchangeable one with the other.
Keren Kayemeth Le Jisroel, Limited v Commissioners of Inland Revenue	N/A	Yes	[1931] 2 KB 465	N/A	Cited for the meaning of promotion of religion.
United Lodge of Ancient Free and Accepted Masons of England v Holborn Borough Council	N/A	Yes	[1957] 1 WLR 1080	N/A	Cited for the meaning of advancement of religion.
Neville Estates Ltd v Madden and others	N/A	Yes	[1962] 1 Ch 832	N/A	Cited for the principle that social activities can be ancillary to religious activities.
In Re Compton, Powell v Compton and others	N/A	Yes	[1945] 1 Ch 123	N/A	Cited for the principle that a charitable purpose must be of a public character.
Gilmour v Coats and others	N/A	Yes	[1949] 1 AC 426	N/A	Cited for the principle that there must be proof of public benefit for a trust to be charitable.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Baddeley and others	N/A	Yes	[1955] 1 AC 572	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust cannot qualify as a charity if the beneficiaries are confined to a particular area and selected by reference to a particular creed.
Nai Seng Hiang v Trustees of the Presbyterian Church in Singapore	High Court	Yes	[1988] 2 SLR(R) 106	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a trust may lack the public element if the class of beneficiaries is too small.
In re Hetherington, Decd.	N/A	Yes	[1989] 2 WLR 1094	N/A	Cited for the principle that a trust for the advancement of education, the relief of poverty or the advancement of religion is prima facie charitable and assumed to be for the public benefit.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Charitable trust
Non-charitable purpose trust
Advancement of religion
Public benefit
Buddhist
Vegetarian
Temple
Sanctuary
Declaration of Trust

15.2 Keywords

trust
charitable trust
buddhist
vegetarian
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Charitable Giving	90
Trust Law	90
Non-charitable purpose trust	50
Property Law	40
Succession Law	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Charities
Religion