Chin Kim Yon v Chin Kheng Hai: Resulting Trust, Advancement & Illegitimate Children

In Chin Kim Yon v Chin Kheng Hai, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between Chin Kim Yon and his illegitimate son, Chin Kheng Hai, regarding the ownership of a property. Chin claimed the property was held on a resulting trust for him, while Hai argued it was a gift, relying on the presumption of advancement. The court dismissed Chin's claim, finding that the presumption of advancement was not rebutted, and ordered Chin to pay costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Chin's claim against Hai is dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding a dispute over property ownership between a father and his illegitimate son. The court considered resulting trust and advancement.

1.7 Decision Date

5 January 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chin Kim Yon	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Winston Quek Seng Soon
Chin Kheng Hai	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Goh Peck San
Chin Yun Qin	Other	Individual
Mdm Sim Ah Swan	Other	Individual
Mdm Lim Ya	Other	Individual

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Lee Meng	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Winston Quek Seng Soon	Winston Quek & Co
Goh Peck San	P S Goh & Co

4. Facts

Chin paid for the Hillview property but registered it in the names of his illegitimate son, Hai, and daughter, Qin.
Chin claimed the property was held on a resulting trust for him.
Hai argued the property was a gift, relying on the presumption of advancement.
Qin died intestate, and her half share of the property was transferred to Chin.
Chin sought a declaration that he was the beneficial owner of the Hillview property and an order for Hai to transfer his rights to him.
Hai counterclaimed, seeking an order that Chin transfer Qin's half share of the property to him, but later abandoned the counterclaim.
Chin, through his former solicitors, acknowledged Hai's interest in the Hillview property in several letters and emails.

5. Formal Citations

Chin Kim Yon v Chin Kheng Hai, Suit No 1213 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 02

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1958-01-01	Chin married Mdm Sim Ah Swan.
1965-01-01	Qin was born.
1967-01-01	Hai was born.
1969-01-01	Chin and Mdm Sim ceased contact.
2000-01-20	Qin took an option to purchase the Hillview property.
2000-09-24	Hillview property purchased and registered in the names of Hai and Qin.
2003-06-01	Hillview property mortgaged to DBS bank for a term loan.
2003-07-01	Chin's name added to Qin's for the purchase of a HDB flat.
2013-03-30	Mdm Lim Ya passed away.
2013-07-11	Hai allegedly assaulted Chin in Johor.
2014-01-22	Qin passed away.
2014-01-29	Toh Tan LLP wrote to Hai regarding Qin's death.
2014-07-11	Toh Tan LLP proposed the Hillview property be sold by public auction.
2014-08-18	Toh Tan LLP emailed Hai to persuade him to agree to the sale of the property by auction.
2014-08-22	Hillview property valued at $1.25m by Jones Lang LaSalle.
2014-08-25	Hai stated that both owners have to agree on a selling price.
2014-10-27	Winston Quek & Co asserted that Hai and Qin held the Hillview property on trust for their father.
2014-11-14	Suit filed.
2014-12-13	Qin’s half share of the Hillview property was transferred to Chin.
2015-08-03	Trial began.
2015-08-05	Trial.
2015-10-09	Trial.
2016-01-06	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Presumption of Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that a presumption of resulting trust arose in favor of Chin because he paid for the Hillview property.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  - (1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92
Presumption of Advancement
- Outcome: The court held that the presumption of advancement applied because Chin was the father of Hai and Qin, and the evidence presented was insufficient to rebut this presumption.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  - [2007] All ER (D) 335
  - [1946] Ch 1
  - (1858) 4 K & J 152
  - (1879) 10 Ch D 474
  - [1970] AC 777
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 795
  - [1999] 3 SLR(R) 410
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  - (1677) 2 Swans 594
  - [1911] AC 386
  - (1890) 62 LT 384
  - [2004] EWCA Civ 223
  - [2007] 1 SCR 795
Equitable Estoppel
- Outcome: The court did not consider the issue of equitable estoppel as it found in favor of Hai on the basis of the presumption of advancement.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
Order for Transfer of Property

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108	Singapore	Cited for the two-stage test to be applied when considering the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement.
Dyer v Dyer	N/A	Yes	(1788) 2 Cox Eq Cas 92	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a resulting trust arises in favour of the person who advances the purchase money for a property registered in the name of another.
Murless v Franklin	N/A	Yes	(1818) 1 Swans 13	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement arises where the purchaser is under a species of natural obligation to provide for the nominee.
Antoni and another v Antoni and others	Privy Council	Yes	[2007] All ER (D) 335	N/A	Cited for the interplay between the presumptions of resulting trust and advancement.
In re Roberts, Deceased	N/A	Yes	[1946] Ch 1	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a father making payments on behalf of a son is prima facie taken to be making an advance in favour of the son.
Soar v Foster	N/A	Yes	(1858) 4 K & J 152	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement extends to a purchase by a father in the name of his illegitimate child.
Bennet v Bennet	N/A	Yes	(1879) 10 Ch D 474	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a person not the father of a child may put himself in the position of one in loco parentis to the child and incur the obligation to make a provision for the child.
Pettitt v Pettitt	House of Lords	Yes	[1970] AC 777	England and Wales	Cited for the diminished significance of the presumption of advancement in spousal relationships due to changed social circumstances.
Low Gim Siah and others v Low Geok Khim and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 795	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement has not lost its robustness in traditional relationships such as that of father and child.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 410	Singapore	Cited 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.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1048	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement will operate only where there is no direct evidence of the intention of the parties.
Grey v Grey	N/A	Yes	(1677) 2 Swans 594	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the natural consideration of blood and affection was not displaced and the presumption of advancement was not rebutted.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v Byrnes	Privy Council	Yes	[1911] AC 386	N/A	Cited for the principle that a father’s receipt of rents from properties given to his two sons did not convert a presumption of advancement in favour of the sons into a trust in favour of the father.
Re Gooch	N/A	Yes	(1890) 62 LT 384	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement was rebutted by evidence that the father transferred the shares to his son in order to enable the latter to become eligible for appointment as a director of the company and had not intended to give the shares to his son.
Lavelle v Lavelle and others	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] EWCA Civ 223	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement was rebutted by evidence that the father bought the flat for his own use and that he intended to retain the beneficial interest in the flat.
Pecore v Pecore	Canadian Supreme Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SCR 795	Canada	Cited for the view that the presumption of advancement should not apply in respect of independent adult children.
Shephard and another v Cartwright and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1955] AC 431	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that declarations by a beneficiary of an alleged trust against his own interest that are made after the purchase of the property may be taken against him.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Giok Bie Jao and others	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 56	Singapore	Cited for the obiter observation that the looser approach seems eminently sensible.
Tan Chin Hoon and others v Tan Choo Suan (in her personal capacity and as executrix of the estate of Tan Kiam Toen (deceased) and others and other matters	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 306	Singapore	Cited for the principle that self-serving evidence is of little probative value.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Resulting Trust
Presumption of Advancement
Illegitimate Child
Purchase Money Resulting Trust
Beneficial Owner
Tenants in Common
Intestate Succession Act
Gratuitous Transfer

15.2 Keywords

resulting trust
presumption of advancement
property ownership
family dispute
illegitimate children
Singapore High Court

16. Subjects

Trusts
Property Law
Family Law

17. Areas of Law

Family Law
Trust Law
Resulting Trusts
Presumption of Advancement