Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin: Resulting Trust, Fiduciary Duties, Limitation Act

In Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim by Lim Ah Leh against Heng Fock Lin, seeking an account for approximately S$3.5 million given to Heng for investment between 1993 and 2007. The court, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, found that Heng held the funds on a presumed resulting trust but that Lim's claim was time-barred by the Limitation Act. The court also determined that even if the claim were not time-barred, it would exercise its discretion not to order an account. The court dismissed Lim's claim and Heng's counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving a resulting trust, fiduciary duties, and the Limitation Act. Claim for an account was time-barred.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lim Ah LehPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Heng Fock LinDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Vinodh CoomaraswamyJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sara Ng Qian HuiVicki Heng Law Corporation
Tan Sia Khoon Kelvin DavidVicki Heng Law Corporation
Yeo Choon Hsien LeslieSterling Law Corporation
Shriveena NaiduSterling Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. From 1993 to 2007, the plaintiff paid various sums of money to the defendant for her to manage and invest.
  2. The total sum of money paid is about S$3.5m at today’s exchange rates.
  3. The plaintiff commenced an action in 2014 seeking an order that the defendant account to him for all of that money.
  4. The plaintiff is a citizen of New Zealand and carries on business there.
  5. The defendant is a citizen of Singapore and carries on business here.
  6. The plaintiff’s wife is the defendant’s sister.
  7. The defendant received substantially all of the sums of money which the plaintiff claims to have paid to her.
  8. The plaintiff did not intend to make a gift of these sums to the defendant.
  9. The plaintiff commenced this action on 28 April 2014.
  10. The plaintiff last paid a sum of money to the defendant in 2007.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin, Suit No 449 of 2014, [2018] SGHC 156

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff began paying sums of money to the defendant for management and investment.
Plaintiff paid S$460,000 to the defendant using a traveller’s cheque.
Parties opened a joint account in Singapore with United Overseas Bank.
Plaintiff paid S$460,000 to Teo Chye Har using a traveller’s cheque.
Plaintiff paid S$168,000 to Teo Chye Har using a traveller’s cheque.
Plaintiff paid S$29,000 to Uno Cafim using a traveller’s cheque.
Plaintiff paid S$8,367.40 to Heng Management using a traveller’s cheque.
Plaintiff paid S$128,000 to the defendant using a traveller’s cheque.
Ting Teng Keow cleared immigration in New Zealand.
Plaintiff paid S$208,000 to the defendant using a traveller’s cheque.
Heng Fook Seng cleared immigration in New Zealand.
Plaintiff paid RMB100,000 to the defendant in cash through Heng Fook Seng.
Defendant and her family visited the plaintiff in New Zealand.
Plaintiff delivered S$120,000 to the defendant.
Plaintiff paid US$20,000 to the defendant in cash through Heng Fock Whatt.
Defendant and her family visited the plaintiff in New Zealand.
Plaintiff delivered S$110,000 to the defendant.
Plaintiff handed the defendant a briefcase containing cash in the sum of US$80,000 at Changi Airport in Singapore.
Plaintiff and his wife travelled to Singapore and handed the defendant a sum of US$120,000 in cash.
Defendant sold the Shanghai properties.
Defendant and her family visited the plaintiff in New Zealand.
Plaintiff last paid a sum of money to the defendant.
Proceeds of sale of Shanghai properties were repatriated to Singapore.
Defendant closed Citibank account and transferred the balance into a new Citibank account in the joint names of the plaintiff, his wife and the defendant.
GK Holding sold the Rochor property for about S$39m.
Plaintiff commenced this action.
Trial began.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant held the funds on a presumed resulting trust for the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
      • [1996] AC 669
  2. Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff fiduciary duties, including a duty to account.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 654
  3. Limitation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's claim was time-barred by s 6(2) of the Limitation Act.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for an account
  2. Payment of money found to be due
  3. Return of money still in defendant's possession

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Failure to Account

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Equity Law
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the principle that a resulting trust arises whenever the intention of a transferor to benefit a transferee is vitiated or absent.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the principle that a resulting trust arises whenever the intention of a transferor to benefit a transferee is vitiated or absent.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1996] AC 669England and WalesCited for the two sets of circumstances that give rise to a resulting trust: voluntary payment and transfer of property on express trusts.
In re Vinogradoff; Allen v JacksonUnknownYes[1935] WN 68England and WalesCited as an early authority for the principle that a joint owner of property for which she did not pay is presumed to be a resulting trustee of that property.
Alagappa Subramanian v Chidambaram s/o AlagappaCourt of AppealYes[2003] SGCA 20SingaporeCited and distinguished regarding the requirements for a resulting trust.
Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 654SingaporeCited for the proper approach to determining whether a resulting trust encompasses fiduciary duties.
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 173SingaporeCited for the view that a trustee’s duty to account is part of the irreducible core of a trust, but this view was revised in light of Tan Yok Koon.
Lalwani Shalini Gobind and another v Lalwani Ashok BherumalHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 90SingaporeCited for the purposes of equity in filling the duty to account.
Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the effect of s 6(7) of the Limitation Act and the meaning of 'fraud' in s 22(1)(a).
Wong Chong Yue v Wong Chong ThaiHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 804SingaporeCited and not followed regarding whether a claim for accounting under an express trust is subject to any time bar.
Ang Toon Teck v Ang Poon SinHigh CourtYes[1998] SGHC 67SingaporeCited for the principle that liability to account arises upon receipt of the trust property and that time for the purposes of s 6(2) begins to run upon receipt.
Brownlow William Knox v Frederick GyeHouse of LordsYes(1871) LR 5 HL 656England and WalesCited for the principle that the statutory period begins to run from the date the partnership estate vested in the surviving partner.
Lai Hoon Woon (executor and trustee of the estate of Lai Thai Lok, deceased) v Lai Foong Sin and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 113SingaporeCited for the principle that the statutory period begins to run from the date the partnership estate vested in the surviving partner.
In re Howlett (William Henry) (Dec’d)UnknownYes[1949] 1 Ch 767England and WalesCited for the assumption that s 23 of the English Limitation Act 1980 applies to a beneficiary’s action for an account.
Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & CoUnknownYes[1999] 1 All ER 400England and WalesCited for the principle that the English equivalent of s 6(2) applies only to actions for an account founded on common law legal rights.
Barnett and another v CreggyUnknownYes[2014] EWHC 3080 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that where all of a beneficiary’s other claims against a trustee are time-barred, an English court will not order an account if the account would serve no useful purpose.
Tito and Others v Waddell and Others (No 2)UnknownYes[1977] 1 Ch 106England and WalesCited for the combined effect of ss 2(2) and 2(7) of the English Limitation Act 1939.
Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 260SingaporeCited for the principle that a beneficiary who would otherwise be entitled to an account may be denied the remedy where it would be oppressive to require the fiduciary to so account.
Attorney-General v Cocke and AnotherUnknownYes[1988] Ch 414England and WalesCited for the principle that a beneficiary who would otherwise be entitled to an account may be denied the remedy where it would be oppressive to require the fiduciary to so account.
Armitage v Nurse and OthersUnknownYes[1998] Ch 241England and WalesCited for the meaning of “fraud” and “fraudulent” for the purposes of s 22(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and othersHouse of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 164England and WalesCited for the applicable test for dishonesty.
Lim Siew Bee v Lim Boh Chuan and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 41SingaporeCited and disagreed with regarding the definition of fraud in s 22(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Applegate v MossUnknownYes[1971] 1 QB 406England and WalesCited and disagreed with regarding the definition of fraud in s 22(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
Ang Tin Gee v Pang Teck GuanHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 259SingaporeCited for the principle that to obtain an account on the common basis in respect of matters more than six years before the action was commenced, a beneficiary must bring an action which is within the scope of the exceptions in s 22(1) of the Limitation Act.
Re Tebbs (deceased); Redfern v Tebbs and anotherUnknownYes[1976] 1 All ER 858England and WalesCited for the principle that to obtain an account on the basis of wilful default in respect of matters no more than six years before the action was commenced, a beneficiary must establish that the trustee has committed at least one instance of wilful default which has caused loss to the trust property.
In re Wrightson; Wrightson v CookeUnknownYes[1908] 1 Ch 789England and WalesCited for the principle that a breach of trust may amount to a wilful default, but not necessarily.
Meehan v Glazier Holdings Pty LtdUnknownYes(2002) 54 NSWLR 146AustraliaCited for the principle that a beneficiary cannot secure an account on the wilful default basis simply by establishing that the trustee has committed a breach of trust.
Panweld Trading Pte Ltd v Yong Kheng Leong and others (Loh Yong Lim, third party)UnknownYes[2012] 2 SLR 672SingaporeCited for the principle that to obtain an account on the common basis in respect of matters no more than six years before the action was commenced, a beneficiary simply needs to establish that his trustee owes him a duty to account.
Partington v ReynoldsUnknownYes(1858) 4 Drew 253England and WalesCited for the principle that an order for an account supposes no misconduct.
In re Chapman; Cockes v ChapmanUnknownYes[1896] 2 Ch 763England and WalesCited for the principle that whether there is a breach of trust is highly fact-dependent.
Attorney-General for Ireland (at the Relation of McMullen and others) v Dublin CorporationUnknownYes[1824–34] All ER Rep 82IrelandCited for the definition of an action for an account.
Attorney-General for Hong Kong v Charles Warwick Reid and OthersPrivy CouncilYes[1994] 1 AC 324Hong KongCited for the definition of an action for an account.
Glazier Holdings Pty Ltd v Australian Men’s Health Pty Ltd (No 2)Supreme Court of New South WalesYes[2001] NSWSC 6AustraliaCited for the definition of an action for an account.
Lockey v LockeyUnknownYes(1719) Prec Ch 518England and WalesCited for the no side-stepping rule.
Re RichardsonUnknownYes[1919] 2 Ch 50England and WalesCited for the principle that the court ordered an account without limit of time so that the beneficiary could ascertain the facts.
Re WilliamsUnknownYes[1916] 2 Ch 38England and WalesCited for the principle that a defendant trustee could, by proving that there was no fraudulent breach of trust beyond six years before the action was commenced, persuade the court to restrict the temporal scope of the account.
How v Earl WintertonUnknownYes[1896] 2 Ch 626England and WalesCited for the principle that the court would order an account limited to trust property in the trustee’s hands within six years before the action was commenced and of other trust property that came to the trustee in the same period.
George Bray v John Rawlinson FordHouse of LordsYes[1896] AC 44England and WalesCited for the general effect of the no conflict duty.
Thorn v Heard and MarshUnknownYes[1894] 1 Ch 599England and WalesCited for the principle that the phrase “still retained” covered cases where the trustee had the money or could readily get it, but did not extend to cases where the money had been lost, so that the trustee could no longer get it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting trust
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Limitation Act
  • Duty to account
  • Fraudulent breach of trust
  • Trust property
  • Possession
  • Conversion
  • Time-barred

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • fiduciary
  • limitation
  • account
  • equity

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Resulting Trust95
Presumed Resulting Trusts90
Trust Law90
Limitation85
Fiduciary Duties80
Chancery and Equity75
Equity and limitation of actions70
Particular causes of action60
Account50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trust Law
  • Equity
  • Civil Procedure
  • Limitation of Actions