Lilyana Alwi v. John Arifin: Express Trusts, Resulting Trusts, Breach of Trust, and Fraud

Lilyana Alwi, an Indonesian citizen, sued her son, John Arifin, in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a declaration that she was the sole beneficiary of moneys held in certain joint accounts and the return of several pieces of jewellery. The court, Woo Bih Li J, declared that Lilyana Alwi was beneficially entitled to the credit balance in the Joint Accounts. The rest of the plaintiff’s claims were dismissed. The defendant’s counterclaim in respect of half of the moneys in the Joint Accounts was also dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Plaintiff in part; claims regarding the Joint Accounts were successful, but the claim for the return of jewellery was dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lilyana Alwi sued John Arifin over joint accounts and jewelry. The court declared Alwi the beneficiary of the accounts but dismissed the jewelry claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lilyana AlwiPlaintiffIndividualBeneficially entitled to the credit balance in the Joint AccountsWon
John ArifinDefendantIndividualCounterclaim dismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Deborah BarkerKhattarWong LLP
Ushan PremaratneKhattarWong LLP
Kenneth Yap MengKhattarWong LLP
Narayanan SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Tan Kai Ning ClaireStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, Lilyana Alwi, is an 86-year-old Indonesian citizen.
  2. The defendant, John Arifin, is the plaintiff's eldest son and a Singapore citizen.
  3. The funds in the joint accounts originated from the sale of a property in Simprug, Indonesia in 2007.
  4. The plaintiff claimed she was the sole beneficial owner of the moneys in the Joint Accounts.
  5. The defendant denied that the plaintiff is the sole beneficiary of the moneys in the Joint Accounts.
  6. The plaintiff alleged an express trust agreement between her and the defendant.
  7. The defendant denied the existence of the Express Trust Agreement.
  8. The plaintiff sought the return of several pieces of jewellery allegedly handed over to the defendant to be held on trust for her in 1998.
  9. The defendant's position was that the jewellery was handed to his wife as gifts to his wife and daughters.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lilyana Alwi v John Arifin, Suit No 159 of 2016, [2019] SGHC 113

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Jewellery allegedly handed over to the defendant to be held on trust for the plaintiff.
Date of Mr. Arifin's Final Will and Draft Will.
Funds from the sale of the Simprug Property transferred into the Initial Citibank Joint Account.
Sale and purchase agreement for the Simprug Property.
Surat Keterangan signed by Mr. Arifin and the plaintiff.
Payment of US$19,000 to Trina Arifin.
Payment of US$95,000 to the defendant.
Payment of US$16,000 to Trina Arifin.
Payment of £76,726.05 to the defendant.
2008 Statement signed by Mr. Arifin, the plaintiff, the defendant and Mdm Ho.
Mr Arifin passed away.
Payment of S$60,000 to the defendant.
Email from the defendant to his brother David.
Defendant made reference to signed statements in an email to the plaintiff.
Email from the plaintiff to David.
Letter from the plaintiff’s lawyers to the defendant’s lawyers.
Plaintiff commenced Suit No 159 of 2016.
Initial Defence filed.
Plaintiff allowed to withdraw half of the moneys in the Joint Accounts.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Ownership of moneys in Joint Accounts
    • Outcome: The court declared that the plaintiff is beneficially entitled to the credit balance in the Joint Accounts.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ownership of Simprug Property
      • Extent of plaintiff’s interest in the moneys in the Initial Citibank Joint Account
  2. Existence of Express Trust Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff has not established the existence of the alleged oral agreement constituting the express trust in her favour on a balance of probabilities.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Breach of fiduciary duties
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no breach of trust and/or fiduciary duty owed to the plaintiff as the payments in question were authorised and not procured by any fraud upon the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Trust over Jewellery
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff has not proven on a balance of probabilities that the Jewellery was held on trust by the defendant for her.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the plaintiff was the sole beneficiary of moneys held in certain joint accounts
  2. Account as trustee for alleged breaches of trust and/or fiduciary duties
  3. Return of several pieces of jewellery

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of trust
  • Breach of fiduciary duty
  • Declaration of beneficial ownership

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Legal

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin PengHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 783SingaporeCited for the approach to be adopted when determining the intention of the deceased in relation to the presumption of resulting trust.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the approach to be adopted when determining the intention of the deceased in relation to the presumption of resulting trust.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the principle that the presumption of advancement would apply to displace the presumption of resulting trust.
Commissioner of Stamp Duties v ByrnesPrivy CouncilYes[1911] 1 AC 386EnglandCited for the principle that the fact that the recipient of property allows the property or the fruit of that property to be used according to the donor’s wishes does not necessarily rebut the presumption of advancement.
Chin Kim Yon v Chin Kheng HaiHigh CourtYes[2016] SGHC 2SingaporeCited for the principle that the fact that the recipient of property allows the property or the fruit of that property to be used according to the donor’s wishes does not necessarily rebut the presumption of advancement.
Low Gim Siah and others v Low Geok Khim and anotherHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeDistinguished from situations in which the presumption of advancement was found to be rebutted.
Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the requirements for an express trust to be constituted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Wills Act (Cap 352, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Express trust
  • Resulting trust
  • Presumption of advancement
  • Joint account
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Simprug Property
  • Initial Citibank Joint Account
  • Surat Keterangan
  • Jewellery

15.2 Keywords

  • Trusts
  • Express trusts
  • Resulting trusts
  • Breach of trust
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Joint accounts
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law95
Resulting Trust80
Constructive Trust75
Fiduciary Duties70
Chancery and Equity60
Fraud and Deceit50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Equity
  • Banking
  • Financial Services