Koh Lau Keow v Attorney-General: Validity of Buddhist Temple Trust

In Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding the validity of a trust established in 1960 for a property used as a Buddhist temple. Koh Lau Keow, the first appellant, sought a declaration that the trust was void, arguing it did not exclusively serve charitable purposes. The Attorney-General, as the protector of charities, opposed the application. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, declaring the trust void and Koh the sole beneficial owner of the property, finding that one of the trust's purposes was not exclusively charitable.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal examined the validity of a trust for a Buddhist temple, focusing on whether it exclusively served charitable purposes. The court found the trust invalid.

1.7 Decision Date

16 March 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Attorney-General	Respondent	Government Agency	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Leon Michael Ryan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Lim Wei Shin of Attorney-General’s Chambers Russell Low of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Koh Lau Keow	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Won	Suresh Damodara of Damodara Hazra LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Leon Michael Ryan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Lim Wei Shin	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Russell Low	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Suresh Damodara	Damodara Hazra LLP

4. Facts

Koh Lau Keow purchased the property in 1948 to serve as a home for herself and three other women.
In 1960, Koh and the other owners executed a Trust Deed declaring the property would be used as a Buddhist temple and a home for Chinese women vegetarians.
The Trust Deed allowed the trustees to choose which Chinese women vegetarians could reside at the property.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore reviewed the property tax exemption in 2005 and determined that property tax was payable retrospectively from 1999.
Koh Lau Keow sought to terminate the Trust and make provisions for the property in a will.
The property was used as a private residence rather than as an institution or place of refuge for needy individuals.

5. Formal Citations

Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General, Civil Appeal No 79 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 18

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1936-01-01	Koh Lau Keow came to Singapore from China.
1948-01-01	Koh Lau Keow decided to purchase the property at 10 Rangoon Lane.
1948-04-01	First application for exemption from payment of rates was made.
1949-07-01	Koh Lau Keow wrote to the Municipal Assessor requesting for exemption from rates.
1949-08-16	Lim Boon Hian replied to the Municipal Assessor regarding the property.
1957-01-01	Koh engaged a contractor to erect a concrete single-storey building on the Property.
1959-01-01	Exemption from payment of rates effective from this date.
1960-10-12	Trust Deed declared.
1960-09-27	Chan See Kan informed Koh’s lawyers of the exemption from payment of rates.
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.
1990-04-01	The third Aunt passed away.
1992-01-01	The second to sixth appellants were appointed as trustees between 1992 and 2003.
1993-01-01	Renovation of the building.
1999-01-01	Property tax payable retrospectively from this date.
2003-01-01	The second to sixth appellants were appointed as trustees between 1992 and 2003.
2005-01-01	Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore reviewed the property tax exemption for the Property.
2009-01-01	Renovation of the building.
2012-01-01	OS 1021/2012 filed by the appellants.
2013-01-01	High Court dismissed the application.
2014-03-17	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Charitable Trust
- Outcome: The Court held that the trust was not a valid charitable trust because it was not exclusively charitable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Public Benefit Requirement
  - Exclusively Charitable Purpose
- Related Cases:
  - [1891] 1 AC 531

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that Trust is Void
Declaration that Koh Lau Keow is the sole beneficial owner of the Property

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration that Trust is Void

10. Practice Areas

Trusts and Estates
Charitable Trusts
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Religious Organizations

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Koh Lau Keow and others v Attorney-General	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 491	Singapore	The High Court's decision on the validity of the trust was appealed.
The Commissioners for Special Purposes of the Income Tax v John Frederick Pemsel	House of Lords	Yes	[1891] 1 AC 531	United Kingdom	Cited for the four heads of charity: relief of poverty, advancement of education, advancement of religion, and other purposes beneficial to the community.
In re Isabel Joanna James	Chancery Division	Yes	[1932] 2 Ch 25	England and Wales	Discussed in relation to the interpretation of 'home of rest' as a charitable object, but distinguished on the facts.
In re White	Chancery Division	Yes	[1893] 2 Ch 41	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a society for private prayer without a public element is not a charitable one.
Cocks v Manners	Court of Equity	Yes	(1871) LR 12 Eq 574	England and Wales	Cited for the distinction between charitable institutions with social work and those focused on personal sanctification.
Gilmour v Coats and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1949] 1 AC 426	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that a trust in favor of cloistered nuns without exterior works lacks public benefit and is not charitable.
In re Warre’s Will Trusts	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1953] 1 WLR 725	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a retreat house for religious contemplation without public impact is not a charitable activity.
Re Chionh Ke Hu, Deceased	High Court	Yes	[1964] MLJ 270	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a trust for persons professing Buddhism without public benefit is not a charitable trust.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v Baddeley and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1955] 1 AC 572	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the public benefit test and restrictions on access to something of general utility.
Presbyterian Church (New South Wales) Property Trust v Ryde Municipal Council	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[1978] 2 NSWLR 387	Australia	Discussed in relation to whether a trust of land in favour of the Presbyterian Church was charitable.
Neville Estates Ltd v Madden and others	Chancery Division	Yes	[1962] 1 Ch 832	England and Wales	Discussed in relation to whether a trust of land to a synagogue was charitable.
Oxford Group v Inland Revenue Commissioners	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1949] 2 All ER 537	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that if a non-charitable activity is an independent object of the trust, then the trust is not exclusively charitable.
In re Sanders’ Will Trusts	Chancery Division	Yes	[1954] 1 Ch 265	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an unequivocal statement of a general charitable intention is insufficient if the purposes are not exclusively charitable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Property Tax Ordinance 1960 (No 72 of 1960)	Singapore
Property Tax Act (Cap 254, 2005 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Charitable Trust
Public Benefit
Advancement of Religion
Perpetuity
Trust Deed
Buddhist Temple
Chinese Women Vegetarians
Home or Sanctuary

15.2 Keywords

trust
charitable trust
buddhist temple
property
singapore
attorney-general

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	95
Wills and Probate	40
Property Law	30
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Trusts
Charities
Property Tax