BOK v BOL: Setting Aside Declaration of Trust Due to Misrepresentation and Undue Influence

In BOK v BOL, the High Court of Singapore, on 11 December 2017, set aside a declaration of trust (DOT) signed by the plaintiff, BOK, three days after his mother's funeral. The plaintiff claimed he was misled by the second defendant, BOL, his wife, and her father, into signing the DOT, which made him and his wife joint trustees of all his assets for their son, BOM. The court, presided over by Valerie Thean J, found that the plaintiff was indeed misled and under undue influence, rendering the DOT invalid. The plaintiff brought a claim to set aside the DOT.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Declaration of Trust set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court sets aside a declaration of trust due to misrepresentation and undue influence, finding the plaintiff was misled and vulnerable.

1.7 Decision Date

10 December 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BOK	Plaintiff	Individual	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Wang Liansheng of Bih Li & Lee LLP Michael Hwang of Michael Hwang Chambers LLC Loh Wai Mooi of Bih Li & Lee LLP Derric Yeoh of Michael Hwang Chambers LLC Anthony Lee of Bih Li & Lee LLP
BOL	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Dismissed	Lost	Suresh s/o Damodara of Damodara Hazra LLP Clement Ong of Damodara Hazra LLP
BOM	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Dismissed	Lost	Kenneth Tan of Kenneth Tan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Wang Liansheng	Bih Li & Lee LLP
Michael Hwang	Michael Hwang Chambers LLC
Loh Wai Mooi	Bih Li & Lee LLP
Derric Yeoh	Michael Hwang Chambers LLC
Anthony Lee	Bih Li & Lee LLP
Suresh s/o Damodara	Damodara Hazra LLP
Clement Ong	Damodara Hazra LLP
Kenneth Tan	Kenneth Tan Partnership

4. Facts

Plaintiff signed a Declaration of Trust (DOT) three days after his mother's funeral.
The DOT purported to make the plaintiff and his wife joint trustees of all his assets for their son.
Plaintiff claimed he was misled by his wife and her father regarding the DOT's legal effect.
Plaintiff was grieving his mother's death and was emotionally vulnerable.
Plaintiff's wife, a lawyer, drafted the DOT and misrepresented its effect to him.
Plaintiff initially refused to sign the DOT but was pressured into doing so.
Plaintiff sought to set aside the DOT based on misrepresentation, undue influence, mistake, and unconscionability.

5. Formal Citations

BOK v BOL and another, Suit No 1217 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 316

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-03-19	Plaintiff’s mother was killed.
2014-03-23	Plaintiff’s mother’s funeral was held.
2014-03-26	Plaintiff and his sister read their mother’s will.
2014-03-26	Plaintiff signed the Declaration of Trust.
2014-05-09	Plaintiff signed a Declaration of Trust for the Scotts Road apartment.
2014-07-09	Plaintiff and his sister entered into a deed of family arrangement.
2014-11-01	High Court allowed application to terminate mother’s testamentary trust.
2015-02-12	Plaintiff delivered a letter to the second defendant expressing his wish to be on his own.
2015-11-25	Second defendant filed for divorce.
2015-11-30	Plaintiff commenced suit to set aside the Declaration of Trust.
2017-09-29	Judgment reserved.
2017-12-11	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the second defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff, inducing him to sign the DOT.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that the second defendant exercised undue influence over the plaintiff, leading him to sign the DOT.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 2 SLR(R) 296
  - [2002] 2 AC 773
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 694
  - [2014] 3 SLR 761
  - [2016] 1 SLR 1382
Unconscionability
- Outcome: The court found that the DOT was an unconscionable transaction.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - (1983) 151 CLR 447
  - [2013] HCA 25
  - [2010] 1 SLR 607
  - [1996] 1 SLR(R) 801
  - (1956) 99 CLR 362
  - [2011] 2 SLR 232
  - [1997] 1 All ER 144
Mistake
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff signed the DOT under a mistake as to its legal effect.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 AC 108
  - [2017] 4 SLR 1315
  - [2014] EWHC 4129 (Ch)
Certainty of Trust Property
- Outcome: The court held that the DOT defined the trust property with reasonable certainty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1970] 1 AC 508

8. Remedies Sought

Setting Aside Declaration of Trust

9. Cause of Actions

Setting Aside Declaration of Trust
Misrepresentation
Undue Influence
Mistake
Unconscionability

10. Practice Areas

Trusts
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for the elements required to succeed in a claim for misrepresentation.
Pitt and another v Holt and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 2 AC 108	England	Cited for the principles in setting aside a voluntary disposition on the ground of mistake.
BMM v BMN and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 1315	Singapore	Cited for adopting and applying the principles in Pitt v Holt.
Kennedy v Kennedy	High Court	Yes	[2014] EWHC 4129 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for a useful summary of the principles in Pitt v Holt.
Rajabali Jumabhoy and others v Ameerali R Jumabhoy and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR(R) 296	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to raise a presumption that the defendant has exercised undue influence.
Royal Bank of Scotland plc v Etridge (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 773	England	Cited for the requirements to raise a presumption that the defendant has exercised undue influence.
Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Tan Teck Khong and another (committee of the estate of Pang Jong Wan, mentally disordered) and others	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 694	Singapore	Cited for the forms of presumed undue influence.
Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 761	Singapore	Cited for the test for the existence of an implied retainer.
CIFG Special Assets Capital I Ltd (formerly known as Diamond Kendall Ltd) v Polimet Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1382	Singapore	Cited for the test for the existence of an implied retainer.
Whishaw and another v Stephens and others, In re Gulbenkian’s Settlement	House of Lords	Yes	[1970] 1 AC 508	England	Cited for the test for voidness for uncertainty.
Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim (decd) v Soo Ah Choy	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 822	Singapore	Cited for the argument that any inheritance obtained from his mother’s will is future property.
Sheares Betty Hang Kiu v Chow Kwok Chi and others	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 285	Singapore	Cited for the argument that a beneficiary of a will has an equitable right or a chose in action to have the deceased estate properly administered.
In Re Maye	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 1 WLR 315	England and Wales	Cited for the argument that a beneficiary of a will has an equitable right or a chose in action to have the deceased estate properly administered.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties (Queensland) v Hugh Duncan Livingston	Privy Council	Yes	[1965] AC 694	Australia	Cited for the argument that a beneficiary of a will has an equitable right or a chose in action to have the deceased estate properly administered.
Lord Sudeley and others v The Attorney-General (on behalf of Her Majesty)	House of Lords	Yes	[1897] AC 11	England	Cited for the argument that a beneficiary of a will has an equitable right or a chose in action to have the deceased estate properly administered.
In re Leigh’s Will Trusts	High Court	Yes	[1970] 1 Ch 277	England and Wales	Cited for the argument that even though the interest may at the time of its disposition be only a chose in action, the disponee will be regarded as entitled to the property which the exercise of the chose in action would have granted the disponor.
Marshall (Inspector of Taxes) v Kerr	House of Lords	Yes	[1994] 1 AC 148	England	Cited for the argument that even though the interest may at the time of its disposition be only a chose in action, the disponee will be regarded as entitled to the property which the exercise of the chose in action would have granted the disponor.
Saunders v Vautier	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1841) 49 ER 282	England	The plaintiff and his sister decided to exercise their right under Saunders v Vautier to call in the assets under the will and to apportion them between themselves.
Cole v Gibbons	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1734) 3 P Wms 290	England	The relief existed to protect families and their estates from ruin.
Gwynne v Heaton	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1778) 1 Bro CC 1	England	The relief existed to protect expectant heirs from their own prodigality.
Earl of Chesterfield and Others Executors of John Spencer v Sir Abraham Janssen	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1751) 2 Ves Sen 125	England	The doctrine applied on proof of actual fraud on the part of the heir’s counterparty or on a presumption of fraud, inferred from the unconscionability of the bargain.
Peacock v Evans	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1809) 16 Ves Jr 512	England	A person who sold a reversionary interest could obtain relief by simply proving that the sale was at an undervalue.
Bowes v Heaps	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1814) 3 V & B 117	England	A person who sold a reversionary interest could obtain relief by simply proving that the sale was at an undervalue.
Earl of Aylesford v Morris	Court of Appeal in Chancery	Yes	[1861-73] All ER 300	England	The court’s equitable jurisdiction to set aside unconscionable transactions was re-asserted.
Hugh O’Rorke v John Joseph Bolingbroke	House of Lords	Yes	(1876-77) LR 2 App Cas 814	England	Lord Selborne’s main statement of principle was approved.
Fry v Lane	High Court	Yes	(1888) 40 Ch D 312	England	Where a purchase is made from a poor and ignorant man at a considerable undervalue, the vendor having no independent advice, a Court of Equity will set aside the transaction.
Cresswell v Potter	High Court	Yes	[1978] 1 WLR 255	England	The doctrine of unconscionability resurfaced.
Backhouse v Backhouse	High Court	Yes	[1978] 1 WLR 243	England	Cresswell was applied to similar facts.
Multiservice Bookbinding Ltd and others v Marden	High Court	Yes	[1979] Ch 84	England	The defendant must have “imposed the objectionable terms in a morally reprehensible manner, that is to say, in a way which affects his conscience”.
Boustany v Pigott	Privy Council	Yes	[1995] 69 P & CR 298	Unknown	Unconscionability relates not just to the terms of the bargain but to the behaviour of the stronger party, which must be characterised by some moral culpability.
The Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio and another	High Court	Yes	(1983) 151 CLR 447	Australia	Lays down the principle for setting aside an unconscionable transaction.
Kakavas v Crown Melbourne Limited	High Court	Yes	[2013] HCA 25	Australia	The court’s task is to determine “whether the whole course of dealing between the parties has been such that, as between the parties, responsibility for the plaintiff’s loss should be ascribed to unconscientious conduct on the part of the defendant”.
Chua Chian Ya v Music & Movements (S) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 607	Singapore	A broad and distinct doctrine of unconscionability, like that in Amadio, has not taken root in Singapore.
Fong Whye Koon v Chan Ah Thong	High Court	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR(R) 801	Singapore	Although the principle on unconscionable bargains originated to protect young expectant heirs from being swindled of their inheritance, now it “has been extended to all cases in which the parties contracting do not meet on equal terms”.
Blomley v Ryan	High Court	Yes	(1956) 99 CLR 362	Australia	The circumstances adversely affecting a party who needs the aid of equity to set aside a transaction cannot be “satisfactorily classified”, but their common characteristic is that they have the effect of “placing one party at a serious disadvantage vis-à-vis the other”.
E C Investment v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners)	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 232	Singapore	A doctrine of unconscionability, in that form, was not part of Singapore law.
Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland NV v Burch	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 1 All ER 144	England	The defendant was procured by her employer to mortgage her flat as a security without limit for an increase in his company’s overdraft.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Family Justice Act 2014 (No 27 of 2014)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Law of Property Act 1925 (c 20)	United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Declaration of Trust
Undue Influence
Misrepresentation
Unconscionability
Mistake
Trust Property
Implied Retainer
Grief
Vitiating Factors

15.2 Keywords

Declaration of Trust
Misrepresentation
Undue Influence
Unconscionability
Mistake
Singapore Law
Trusts
Equity

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	90
Misrepresentation	85
Mistake	80
Undue Influence	75
Unconscionable transactions	70
Trusts and Estates	60
Chancery and Equity	50

16. Subjects

Trust Law
Equity
Contract Law