BTB v BTD: Express Trusts, CPF Act & Equitable Maxims in Estate Dispute

In BTB and BTC v BTD, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over the Central Provident Fund (CPF) moneys of the applicants' father. The applicants argued that texts from their father created an express trust over his CPF moneys, entitling them to the funds. The court dismissed the application, holding that the father did not intend to give his sons the entirety of his CPF moneys and that the CPF Act does not allow for inter vivos dispositions save for a nomination under the CPF Act. The court awarded costs to the respondent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over CPF funds after father's death. Court rejects express trust claim, citing CPF Act restrictions and lack of clear intention.

1.7 Decision Date

16 September 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BTB	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Ong Ai Wern of Mallal & Namazie Mirza Namazie of Mallal & Namazie
BTC	Applicant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Ong Ai Wern of Mallal & Namazie Mirza Namazie of Mallal & Namazie
BTD	Respondent	Individual	Costs awarded	Won	Aye Cheng Shone of A C Shone & Co Derek Choo of A C Shone & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Valerie Thean	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ong Ai Wern	Mallal & Namazie
Mirza Namazie	Mallal & Namazie
Aye Cheng Shone	A C Shone & Co
Derek Choo	A C Shone & Co

4. Facts

The Father sent texts to his former wife about long-term provision for his sons using CPF moneys.
The Father was diagnosed with stomach cancer.
The Father applied to withdraw his CPF moneys on medical grounds.
The Father set up CPF accounts for both sons and started putting money into the accounts.
The Father purchased an insurance policy for each son.
The Father executed a will bequeathing 25% of his estate to each of his sons, 20% to the Wife, and the remainder 30% to his parents.
The Father had $718,912.52 in his CPF accounts at the time of his death.

5. Formal Citations

BTB and another v BTD, Originating Summons No 532 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 203

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2014-12-12	Divorce from the Mother was finalised.
2015-03-31	Father married the respondent.
2015-12-01	Father was diagnosed with terminal-phase stomach cancer.
2016-04-01	Father set up CPF accounts for both sons.
2016-10-31	Father purchased an insurance policy for each son.
2016-12-29	Father submitted an online application to the CPF Board to withdraw his CPF funds on medical grounds.
2016-12-29	Father and the Mother had the Whatsapp conversation.
2017-01-04	Dr Tay’s certification was received by CPF Board.
2017-01-05	The CPF Board first wrote to the Father to inform him that his application was under assessment.
2017-01-12	The CPF Board asked Dr Tay for further information.
2017-01-23	Dr Tay faxed the CPF Board a copy of an amended medical certification.
2017-01-25	This amended certificate was later received by the CPF Board.
2017-02-05	Father passed away.
2018-07-17	I dismissed the application with brief reasons.
2018-08-15	The applicants filed a notice of appeal.
2018-09-17	I now furnish my grounds of decision.

7. Legal Issues

Express Trust
- Outcome: The court held that an express trust was not created because the Father did not intend to transfer all the CPF moneys to the sons, let alone constitute a trust over the right to withdraw his CPF moneys in favor of the sons.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Certainty of intention
  - Constitution
- Related Cases:
  - [1977] 1 WLR 527
Equitable Maxim
- Outcome: The court held that the equitable maxim, “equity treats as done that which ought to be done”, was not applicable because the Father had only done all that he could to transfer the property to himself, not to his sons.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1952] Ch 499
  - [2005] NSWSC 65
  - [2001] 1 WLR 1
Interaction with Central Provident Fund Act
- Outcome: The court held that the scheme of the CPF Act does not allow for the inter vivos creation of trusts over CPF moneys.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1990] 1 SLR(R) 555
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 594

8. Remedies Sought

A declaration that all of the CPF moneys of the Father belong beneficially to the two Applicants in equal shares.
An order that the public trustee do pay out all of the Father’s CPF moneys to herself, as legal guardian for the two applicants.

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Estate Law
Trust Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
In re Rose; Rose and another v Inland Revenue Commissioners	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1952] Ch 499	England and Wales	Cited to illustrate the equitable maxim, “equity treats as done that which ought to be done”, in a case where a transferor had done everything in his power to transfer his legal and beneficial interest in shares.
Blackett v Darcy	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2005] NSWSC 65	Australia	Cited to illustrate the equitable maxim, “equity treats as done that which ought to be done”, where a testator drew a cheque in favour of his executor with instructions to buy a home.
T Choithram International SA and others v Pagarani and others	Privy Council	Yes	[2001] 1 WLR 1	British Virgin Islands	Cited for the principle that equity will not strive officiously to defeat a gift and for the analysis of the rules of equity as to complete gifts.
Paul v Constance	N/A	Yes	[1977] 1 WLR 527	N/A	Cited regarding the intention to create an express trust based on surrounding circumstances.
Saniah bte Ali and others v Abdullah bin Ali	N/A	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 555	Singapore	Cited to explain the scheme of the CPF Act and the intention of section 24 regarding the nomination of beneficiaries.
Chai Choon Yong v Central Provident Fund Board and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 594	Singapore	Cited regarding the purposive approach to the words “any written law” in section 24 of the CPF Act.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Central Provident Fund Act (Cap 36, 2013 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 2013 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3)	Singapore
Estate Duty Act (Cap. 96)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Central Provident Fund
CPF moneys
Express trust
Equitable maxim
Inter vivos disposition
Medical grounds
Intestate Succession Act
Public Trustee
Nomination

15.2 Keywords

CPF
Central Provident Fund
Trust
Estate
Singapore
Inheritance

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Express trusts	90
Constructive Trust	85
Trust Law	80
Chancery and Equity	75
CPF Nomination	70
Resulting Trust	50
Succession Law	40
Contract Law	30

16. Subjects

Trusts
Central Provident Fund
Estate Law