Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun: Resulting Trust, Property Disputes

In Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a property registered solely in Mdm Chan's name. Mr See claimed a resulting trust, asserting he provided the entire purchase price. The court found that Mdm Chan contributed $290,000, and Mr See contributed $1,541,758.90 to the $1,831,758.90 purchase price. The court declared that Mdm Chan holds 15.83% of the beneficial interest in the Property on a resulting trust for Mr See. The appeal was allowed in part.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. Mdm Chan holds 15.83% of the beneficial interest in the Property on resulting trust for Mr See.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal case concerning beneficial ownership of property in a domestic dispute. Resulting trust analysis clarified.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chan Yuen LanAppellantIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial
See Fong MunRespondentIndividualPartial VictoryPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Sundaresh MenonChief JusticeYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mark YeoA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Engelin TehA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Simon JonesA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Alice TanA C Fergusson Law Corporation
Ong Ying PingUniLegal LLC
Lim Seng SiewUniLegal LLC
Lai Swee FungUniLegal LLC
Susan TayUniLegal LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Chan and Mr See married in 1957.
  2. The Property was purchased in Mdm Chan’s name alone in 1983.
  3. Mr See claimed he provided the whole of the purchase price of the Property.
  4. Mdm Chan claimed the Property was a gift from Mr See.
  5. Mdm Chan executed a power of attorney in respect of the Property.
  6. The parties' relationship deteriorated, leading to a dispute over the beneficial ownership of the Property.
  7. Mdm Chan contributed $290,000 and Mr See contributed $1,541,758.90 to the $1,831,758.90 purchase price of the Property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun, Civil Appeal No 64 of 2013, [2014] SGCA 36
  2. See Fong Mun v Chan Yuen Lan, , [2013] 3 SLR 685

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Chan Yuen Lan and See Fong Mun married.
Mr See executed a written declaration of trust over part of his See’s Engineering Company Pte Ltd shares in favour of his three children. Mdm Chan did the same over part of her shares.
Mr See turned 55 and became entitled to withdraw his Central Provident Fund monies.
SHC located the Property.
SHC exercised an option to purchase the Property.
The 1983 Meeting took place between Mr See, Mdm Chan and SHC.
Mdm Chan executed a power of attorney in respect of the Property.
The Purchase was completed.
TMPL became the sole shareholder of SEPL.
Mr See transferred all except one of his shares in TMPL to SHC, SSM and SHY.
TMPL sold the Joo Chiat property.
Mr See purportedly dictated the First Memo and the Second Memo.
Mdm Chan revoked the POA.
The decision from which this appeal arose is reported at [2013] 3 SLR 685.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court clarified the application of the resulting trust doctrine, particularly in domestic property disputes, and held that Mdm Chan held 15.83% of the beneficial interest in the Property on a resulting trust for Mr See.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Presumption of Resulting Trust
      • Rebuttal of Presumption
      • Lack of Intention to Benefit
      • Quantification of Beneficial Interest
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  2. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of advancement did not apply in this case due to the state of the relationship between the parties at the time of the Purchase.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Rebuttal of Presumption
      • Spousal Relationship
  3. Common Intention Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court discussed the common intention constructive trust but ultimately resolved the dispute based on resulting trust principles.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Express Common Intention
      • Inferred Common Intention
      • Detrimental Reliance
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 2 AC 432
      • [2012] 1 AC 776

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  2. Declaration that Mdm Chan held the Property under a resulting trust for Mr See
  3. Declaration that she was the true owner of the Property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Trust
  • Resulting Trust
  • Constructive Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Trust Litigation
  • Property Disputes

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeRevisited to clarify the legal position on issues arising in High Court decisions regarding its proper application. Endorsed the lack-of-intention analysis of the resulting trust.
See Fong Mun v Chan Yuen LanHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 685SingaporeThe judgment below, which this appeal is against.
Air Jamaica Ltd and Others v Joy Charlton and OthersPrivy CouncilYes[1999] 1 WLR 1399United KingdomCited for the view that a resulting trust arises by operation of law and responds to the absence of any intention to pass a beneficial interest to the recipient.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 669United KingdomCited for Lord Browne-Wilkinson's explanation that a resulting trust arose from the presumed common intention of the parties.
Vandervell v Inland Revenue CommissionersHouse of LordsYes[1967] 2 AC 291United KingdomCited as an example of a case where the transferor had a clear intention to part with the beneficial interest.
Yong Ching See v Lee Kah Choo KarenHigh CourtYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 957SingaporeInterpreted Lau Siew Kim as clarifying that a lack of intention to benefit the recipient is the fact being inferred when the presumption of resulting trust is applied.
Lin Chao-Feng v Chuang Hsin-YiHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 427SingaporeCited Lau Siew Kim for the principle that a resulting trust arises when the provider of property does not intend to benefit the recipient.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Giok Bie Jao and othersHigh CourtYes[2012] SGHC 56SingaporeCited Lau Siew Kim for the explanation that the lack of intention to benefit the recipient is the fact being inferred when the presumption of resulting trust is applied.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan YewHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 410SingaporeCited for the principle that the presumption of advancement is an evidential instrument of last resort where there is no direct evidence as to the intention of the parties.
Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah SewHigh CourtYes[2012] 2 SLR 831SingaporeInterpreted Lau Siew Kim as suggesting that the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement should only operate when there is no evidence from which to prove or infer the intention of the transferor.
Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin PengHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 783SingaporeCited for the observations concerning the role of presumptions where the evidence, although available, is unsatisfactory or equivocal.
Curley v ParkesEnglish Court of AppealYes[2004] EWCA Civ 1515England and WalesCited for the dicta that subsequent payments of mortgage installments are not part of the purchase price already paid to the vendor.
Stack v DowdenHouse of LordsYes[2007] 2 AC 432United KingdomDiscussed in detail regarding the common intention constructive trust and equitable accounting.
Laskar v LaskarEnglish Court of AppealYes[2008] 1 WLR 2695England and WalesDiscussed briefly in relation to the treatment of a mortgage taken out in joint names in a resulting trust situation.
Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2014] SGCA 27SingaporeCited for the principles regarding the assessment of witness credibility and veracity, especially where material events took place a long time ago.
Pettitt v PettittHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 777United KingdomCited as a foundational authority in English law on the common intention constructive trust.
Gissing v GissingHouse of LordsYes[1971] AC 886United KingdomCited as a foundational authority in English law on the common intention constructive trust.
Lloyds Bank Plc v Rosset and AnotherHouse of LordsYes[1991] 1 AC 107United KingdomCited as the leading case on the essential elements of a claim by one party for a common intention constructive trust over a property held in the sole name of another party prior to Stack and Jones.
Tan Thiam Loke v Woon Swee Kheng ChristinaCourt of AppealYes[1991] 2 SLR(R) 595SingaporeApproved and applied Lord Bridge’s dicta in Rosset.
Jones v KernottUK Supreme CourtYes[2012] 1 AC 776United KingdomDiscussed in detail regarding the common intention constructive trust.
Oxley v HiscockEnglish Court of AppealYes[2005] Fam 211England and WalesMentioned in relation to the interaction between the resulting trust and the common intention constructive trust.
Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 17SingaporeMentioned as a case where the parties advanced their claims on the alternative bases of a resulting trust, a common intention constructive trust, and proprietary estoppel.
Re PiperEnglish High CourtYes[2011] EWHC 3570 (Admin)England and WalesCited as an example of a single-name case where Stack and Jones were applied.
Geary v RankineEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 555England and WalesCited as an example of a single-name case where Stack and Jones were applied.
Thompson v HurstEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 1752England and WalesCited as an example of a single-name case where Stack and Jones were applied.
Aspden v ElvyEnglish High CourtYes[2012] EWHC 1387 (Ch)England and WalesCited as an example of a single-name case where Stack and Jones were applied.
Gallarotti v SebastianelliEnglish Court of AppealYes[2012] EWCA Civ 865England and WalesCited as an example of a single-name case where Stack and Jones were applied and where the approach in Stack and Jones has also been applied outside familial relationships.
Adekunle v RitchieEnglish County CourtYes[2007] EW Misc 5 (EWCC)England and WalesCited as an example where the approach of the majority in Stack applied outside home-sharing arrangements which involved a sexual relationship.
Baumgartner v BaumgartnerHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1987) 164 CLR 137AustraliaCited for the Australian courts' adoption of the concept of “unconscionability” as the basis for imposing a constructive trust where the domestic property in question is a shared home.
Sivritas v SivritasSupreme Court of VictoriaYes[2008] VSC 374AustraliaCited as a recent example where the resulting trust and the common intention constructive trust are still pleaded alongside this modified form of constructive trust in domestic property dispute cases.
Pettkus v BeckerSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1980] 2 SCR 834CanadaCited for the Canadian courts' development of the “remedial constructive trust” based on their law of unjust enrichment and affirmed in Kerr v Baranow [2011] 1 SCR 269.
Kerr v BaranowSupreme Court of CanadaYes[2011] 1 SCR 269CanadaAffirmed Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834.
Peter v BeblowSupreme Court of CanadaYes[1993] 1 SCR 980CanadaCited for the principle that the Canadian courts will only grant the proprietary remedy of a remedial constructive trust where monetary compensation is inappropriate or insufficient.
Shannon v GiddenCourt of Appeal for OntarioYes(1999) 178 DLR (4th) 395CanadaCited for the principle that the Canadian courts will only grant the proprietary remedy of a remedial constructive trust where monetary compensation is inappropriate or insufficient.
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the observation that the Canadian position on unjust enrichment is different from the position adopted in Singapore.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Women's Charter (Cap 353, 2009 Rev Ed) s 112(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting Trust
  • Presumption of Advancement
  • Common Intention Constructive Trust
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Power of Attorney
  • Purchase Price
  • Domestic Property Dispute
  • Lack-of-Intention Analysis
  • Equitable Accounting

15.2 Keywords

  • Resulting Trust
  • Property Dispute
  • Singapore
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Constructive Trust

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Resulting Trust90
Trust Law80
Property Law75
Constructive Trust70
Presumption of Advancement60
Beneficial Ownership50
Common intention40
Family Law30
Contract Law20
Civil Procedure10

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Real Property
  • Family Law
  • Equity