BUE v TZQ: Resulting & Constructive Trusts, Advancement in HDB Property Dispute

In BUE and another v TZQ and another, the Singapore High Court addressed an originating summons filed by BUE and BUF against their father, TZQ, and step-mother, TZR, concerning the beneficial interest in a Housing and Development Board (HDB) property. The brothers sought a declaration that they each held a 33.3% beneficial share. The court determined the parties' shares based on the principles of resulting trust, finding that the father held 87.80%, the first brother 5.18%, and the second brother 7.02% of the beneficial interest. The step-mother's claim of beneficial interest was rejected under property law, with her potential share to be determined under matrimonial law in a related appeal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Declaration that the property is held on a resulting trust with 87.80% to the father, 5.18% to the first brother, and 7.02% to the second brother.

1.3 Case Type

Family

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Brothers BUE and BUF sought a declaration of beneficial interest in a property against their father, TZQ, and step-mother, TZR, in divorce proceedings. The court determined shares based on resulting trust principles.

1.7 Decision Date

27 December 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
TZQ	Defendant	Individual	Partial	Partial	Yeow Tin Tin Margaret of Hoh Law Corporation Jeanna Loe Yuqing of Hoh Law Corporation
TZR	Defendant	Individual	Lost	Lost	Seenivasan Lalita of Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners Tan Li Yi Caleb of Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners
BUE	Plaintiff	Individual	Partial	Partial	Abdul Wahab bin Saul Hamid of I.R.B Law LLP Jovita Ann Dhanaraj of I.R.B Law LLP
BUF	Plaintiff	Individual	Partial	Partial	Abdul Wahab bin Saul Hamid of I.R.B Law LLP Jovita Ann Dhanaraj of I.R.B Law LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Puay Boon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Yeow Tin Tin Margaret	Hoh Law Corporation
Jeanna Loe Yuqing	Hoh Law Corporation
Seenivasan Lalita	Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners
Tan Li Yi Caleb	Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners
Abdul Wahab bin Saul Hamid	I.R.B Law LLP
Jovita Ann Dhanaraj	I.R.B Law LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiffs are brothers, and the first defendant is their biological father.
The second defendant is the brothers' former step-mother.
The brothers and the father are the registered proprietors of a HDB flat.
The step-mother is seeking a share of the property in divorce proceedings.
The property was originally purchased by the father and the brothers’ biological mother.
The property was transferred by gift to the father in 1996.
The brothers used their CPF to discharge the mortgage on the property in 2012.

5. Formal Citations

BUE and another v TZQ and another, Originating Summons No 146 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 276

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1992-10-01	Property purchased by the father and the brothers’ biological mother
1993-07-01	99-year lease for the property started
1996-09-25	Property transferred by gift to the father
2003-07-10	Father married the step-mother
2012-05-01	Step-mother left the property for a trip to India
2012-08-01	Step-mother returned from India and did not return to the property
2012-09-01	Step-mother applied for maintenance from the father
2012-10-02	Father executed a transfer of the property into the joint names of the brothers and the father
2012-10-10	Brothers had CPF deducted to discharge the outstanding mortgage on the property
2012-10-18	Consent maintenance order made
2014-11-10	Father filed the writ for divorce against the step-mother
2016-03-31	Interim judgment for the divorce was granted on the step-mother’s counterclaim
2016-11-24	Hearing before the Family Court
2016-11-29	Order on the ancillary matters was made
2016-12-09	Father filed an appeal
2016-12-15	Interim judgment was made final
2018-01-30	Brothers filed the application
2018-03-06	Brothers allowed to intervene in the Appeal
2018-04-04	Hearing on the application
2018-05-11	Judgment reserved
2018-12-28	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Beneficial Interest in Property
- Outcome: The court determined the beneficial interests in the property based on the principles of resulting trust, rebutting the presumption of advancement and finding no common intention constructive trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Resulting Trust
  - Common Intention Constructive Trust
  - Presumption of Advancement
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court determined that the step-mother's share, if any, would be determined under matrimonial law in a separate appeal.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the plaintiffs are each entitled to a beneficial share of 33.3% of the value of the property.
Equitable determination of the parties’ shares in the property.
Distribution of proceeds in proportion to respective shares after deducting expenses.

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Beneficial Interest

10. Practice Areas

Family Law
Real Estate Law
Trusts and Estates

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
TZQ v TZR	Family Court	Yes	[2017] SGFC 40	Singapore	Cited for the Family Court's ruling that the brothers had no beneficial interest in the property and that their names were added to dilute the step-mother's interest.
UDA v UDB and another	High Court	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 1433	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in proceedings under s 112 of the Women’s Charter, the court has no power to make direct orders against a third party claiming an interest in an alleged matrimonial asset.
UDA v UDB and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited for affirming the rulings in UDA (HC) and stating that a third party intervening in s 112 proceedings can only notify the court of their interest and apply for a stay pending determination of a separate civil suit.
Neo Boh Tan v Ng Kim Whatt	High Court	Yes	[2000] SGHC 31	Singapore	Cited as an example where the resulting trust analysis was applied to family disputes over property between parents and their children.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for the purpose of presuming a resulting trust, only the parties’ contributions at the time of the acquisition of the property were to be considered.
Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 265	Singapore	Cited for the principle that renovation costs incurred years after the acquisition of the property cannot be considered as contributions towards its acquisition.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1048	Singapore	Cited for the analytical framework used to determine the parties’ respective shares of the beneficial interest in the property.
Lee Hwee Khim Rosalind v Lee Sai Khim and others	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 64	Singapore	Cited by the brothers in support of their submission that they had acquired a beneficial interest in the Property as joint tenants through their payments which discharged the Mortgage.
Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 162	Singapore	Cited for the observations made in relation to a common intention with regard to property.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew	High Court	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 410	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement is no more than a long stop to provide the answer when the relevant facts and circumstances fail to yield a solution.
Neo Tai Kim v Foe Stie Wah	Privy Council	Yes	[1985–1986] SLR(R) 48	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where the trial judge had found as a fact that there was a common intention that the property in question should be bought for the wife as the matrimonial home, the common intention by itself established the beneficial ownership and precluded the operation of any presumption.
Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin Peng	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 783	Singapore	Cited for the principle that even where the right of survivorship operates to make the sole surviving owner the sole registered proprietor of the property, the survivor may not be entitled to the whole of the beneficial interest.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Section 18 of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Chapter 322)	Singapore
Section 5 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Chapter 61)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Resulting Trust
Constructive Trust
Presumption of Advancement
Beneficial Interest
Joint Tenants
HDB Flat
Matrimonial Assets
CPF
Mortgage
Transfer by Gift

15.2 Keywords

trust
family
property
divorce
singapore
HDB
beneficial interest
resulting trust
constructive trust
advancement

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Family Law	90
Trust Law	85
Resulting Trusts	80
Constructive trusts	80
Advancement	70
Property Law	60
Conveyancing	50

16. Subjects

Trust Law
Family Law
Property Law