Ishak bin Abdul Kadir v Khoo Hui Ying: Property Ownership Dispute over Keppel Bay View Property

In the case of Ishak bin Abdul Kadir v Khoo Hui Ying, before the High Court of Singapore on 14 July 2015, the plaintiff, Ishak bin Abdul Kadir, sought a declaration regarding the beneficial ownership of a property at Keppel Bay View. The defendant, Khoo Hui Ying, contested the claim. The court, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, ruled in favor of the defendant, ordering the plaintiff to pay the defendant half of the net profit from the sale of a previous property on Oxford Road, refund her Central Provident Fund contributions used for the Keppel Bay View property, and cover the costs of the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orders made in favour of the defendant, Khoo Hui Ying.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Property ownership dispute between Ishak bin Abdul Kadir and Khoo Hui Ying over a Keppel Bay View property. The court ruled in favor of Khoo Hui Ying.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ishak bin Abdul KadirPlaintiffIndividualOrders made against the plaintiffLost
Khoo Hui YingDefendantIndividualOrders made in favour of the defendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kishan Pillay s/o Rajapoal PillayTSMP Law Corporation
Lim Bee LiOptimus Chambers LLC
Melissa KorOptimus Chambers LLC
Irving ChohOptimus Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff and defendant were in a relationship between late 2009 and mid-2012.
  2. The Oxford Property was purchased in 2010 and registered in both parties' names as joint tenants.
  3. The defendant contributed $15,319.14 from her CPF account towards the purchase of the Oxford Property.
  4. The Oxford Property was sold in January 2012 for $990,000.
  5. The Keppel Bay View Property was purchased in February 2012 and registered in both parties' names as joint tenants.
  6. The defendant contributed $15,900 from her CPF account towards the purchase of the Keppel Bay View Property.
  7. The relationship between the parties broke down a few months after they moved into the Keppel Bay View Property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ishak bin Abdul Kadir v Khoo Hui Ying, Originating Summons No 1208 of 2013, [2015] SGHC 181

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and defendant became lovers.
Plaintiff's father was in arrears of monthly installments for his HDB flat.
Parties purchased the Oxford Property.
Parties sold the Oxford Property.
Sale and purchase agreement for the Keppel Bay View Property was signed.
Relationship between the parties broke down.
Originating Summons No 1208 of 2013 filed.
Court made orders after cross examination and hearing submissions.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.
Written grounds of decision given.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership of Property
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had an interest in the property to the extent of her share of the net profit from the Oxford Property.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of beneficial ownership shares in the property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Beneficial Interest

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Joint tenancy
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Central Provident Fund
  • Net profit
  • Property
  • Oxford Property
  • Keppel Bay View Property

15.2 Keywords

  • property ownership
  • joint tenancy
  • beneficial interest
  • CPF
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Family Law75
Property Law65
Division of Assets50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Property Ownership
  • Trusts