Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin: Resulting Trust, Fiduciary Duties, and Limitation Act
Lim Ah Leh, the appellant, appealed against the High Court's decision in Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin. The appellant claimed that Heng Fock Lin, the respondent, was the trustee of money paid to her for management and investment, and that she breached her fiduciary duties. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellant's action was barred by the Limitation Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning a resulting trust and fiduciary duties. The court found the action was barred by the Limitation Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Ah Leh | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Heng Fock Lin | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- From 1993 to 2007, the appellant paid various sums of money to the respondent for the latter to manage and invest on his behalf.
- The total sum paid amounted to around S$3.5m at current exchange rates.
- A portion of these sums was invested in a company referred to as “GK Holding”.
- The appellant sent substantial sums of his money to the respondent in the form of cash or traveller’s cheques.
- The respondent sent those sums back to the appellant.
- In 2014, the appellant commenced an action seeking an order that the respondent account for the money paid.
- The Judge found that the respondent became a resulting trustee of the sums received from the appellant.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin, Civil Appeal No 116 of 2017, [2019] SGCA 26
- Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin, , [2018] SGHC 156
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant began paying sums of money to the respondent for management and investment. | |
| Appellant ceased paying sums of money to the respondent for management and investment. | |
| Appellant commenced an action seeking an order that the respondent account for the money paid. | |
| Decision of the High Court judge. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Oral judgment delivered by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the exception in s 22(1)(b) of the Limitation Act was made out
- Outcome: The Court held that the exception in s 22(1)(b) was not made out.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the allegedly misappropriated dividends were part of the money that the respondent held on a resulting trust for the appellant
- Outcome: The Court held that since the respondent had never held the shares on trust for the appellant, she could not have held the dividends declared in respect of those shares on trust for the appellant as well.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for an Account
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Action for an Account
10. Practice Areas
- Trust Law
- Equity Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 156 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal. |
| Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 654 | Singapore | Cited in relation to fiduciary duties, but the court made no pronouncement on the observations made by the Judge. |
| Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGC 260 | Singapore | Cited for the Judge's alternative ground for finding against the appellant, but the Court made no pronouncement on whether this constitutes part of the Singapore legal landscape. |
| Panweld Trading Pte Ltd v Yong Kheng Leong | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 672 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant in support of his submission that to fall under the exception in s 22(1)(b), he only needs to prove that the respondent had received trust money, without further showing that the respondent had retained possession of or converted trust money to her own use. The court found that this case does not assist the appellant at all. |
| J J Harrison (Properties) Ltd v Harrison | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 BCLC 162 | England | Cited by the appellant in support of his submission that to fall under the exception in s 22(1)(b), he only needs to prove that the respondent had received trust money, without further showing that the respondent had retained possession of or converted trust money to her own use. The court found that this case does not assist the appellant as well. |
| Burnden Holdings (UK) Limited v Fielding and another | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2018] AC 857 | United Kingdom | Cited by the appellant in support of his submission that to fall under the exception in s 22(1)(b), he only needs to prove that the respondent had received trust money, without further showing that the respondent had retained possession of or converted trust money to her own use. The court found that this case does not assist the appellant as well. |
| In re Loftus decd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 WLR 591 | England | Cited by the appellant in support of his submission that to fall under the exception in s 22(1)(b), he only needs to prove that the respondent had received trust money, without further showing that the respondent had retained possession of or converted trust money to her own use. The court found that this case does not assist the appellant as well. |
| Nelson v Rye and another | English High Court | Yes | [1996] WLR 1378 | England | Cited by the appellant in support of his submission that to fall under the exception in s 22(1)(b), he only needs to prove that the respondent had received trust money, without further showing that the respondent had retained possession of or converted trust money to her own use. The court found that this case does not assist the appellant as well. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(2) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 22(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting Trust
- Fiduciary Duty
- Limitation Act
- Trust Property
- Conversion
- GK Holding
- Dividends
15.2 Keywords
- trust
- fiduciary duty
- limitation act
- account
- equity
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trust Law | 75 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 70 |
| Limitation | 65 |
| Resulting Trust | 60 |
| Equity | 50 |
| Account | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Trust Law
- Equity
- Civil Procedure