Neo Aik Soo v. Neo Geek Kuan: Resulting Trusts & Beneficial Ownership Dispute

In Neo Aik Soo v. Neo Geek Kuan and Neo Aik Siong, the High Court of Singapore heard a dispute between siblings over the beneficial ownership of a shophouse. Plaintiff Neo Aik Soo claimed he was the beneficial owner, while Defendants Neo Geek Kuan and Neo Aik Siong argued Neo Aik Siong was the true owner. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi, found in favor of Neo Aik Soo, declaring him the beneficial owner and ordering the proceeds of the property sale to be paid to him. The court dismissed the counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings dispute beneficial ownership of a shophouse. Court finds Plaintiff Neo Aik Soo is the beneficial owner, not Defendant Neo Geek Kuan.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Neo Aik SooPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Neo Geek KuanDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost
Neo Aik SiongDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze ChyiJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Paras Manohar LalwaniDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Elias Benyamin ArunDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Philip JeyaretnamDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Lye May-Yee JaimeFullerton Law Chambers LLC
Lee Tat Weng, DanielFullerton Law Chambers LLC
Lim Tahn Lin AlfredFullerton Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff and Defendants are siblings.
  2. Property was registered in the 1st Defendant’s name since June 1991.
  3. It was common ground that the 1st Defendant was only the legal owner.
  4. Plaintiff claimed he paid the full purchase price with his own funds.
  5. Defendants alleged the 2nd Defendant was the beneficial owner.
  6. Funds for the purchase price came from OCBC Account 1.
  7. Plaintiff operated and controlled OCBC Account 1.
  8. 1st Defendant signed a Statutory Declaration acknowledging Plaintiff's beneficial ownership.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Neo Aik Soo v Neo Geek Kuan and another, Suit No 850 of 2017, [2019] SGHC 278

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff started investing in real estate.
Plaintiff won $400,000 in lottery.
Death of Plaintiff's father.
HDB flat purchased in 2nd Defendant's name.
Conveyance of 20 Lorong K property.
Plaintiff sold 20 Lorong K for $2,120,470.
Plaintiff acquired Medway Investments Pte Ltd.
Medway Investments purchased 25 Lorong M.
25 Lorong M was sold for $2,019,979.
Medway Investments purchased 35 and 41 Oxley Road.
10% deposit of $37,000 paid for Keong Saik Road property.
Balance of $331,438.13 paid for Keong Saik Road property.
Sum of $1,497.50 paid to vendors’ solicitors.
2nd Defendant obtained overdraft facilities from OCBC using the Property as security.
Plaintiff discovered overdraft facilities and confronted the 1st and 2nd Defendants.
OCBC Account 2 was treated as the Plaintiff’s.
Transfer of $400,000 from OCBC Account 2 to OCBC Account 1.
Letter of award to main contractors Teo & Liong was issued.
2nd Defendant obtained further overdraft facilities.
Property tax paid via GIRO from OCBC Account 2.
2nd Defendant obtained further overdraft facilities.
Plaintiff paid $20,000 to 1st Defendant for income tax reimbursement.
Plaintiff began thinking of selling the Property.
2nd Defendant arranged for 1st Defendant to extend Ong’s lease for two years.
Plaintiff wrote a letter for the 1st Defendant to sign and send to Ong.
Plaintiff and 1st Defendant attended Mr Lim’s office.
2nd Defendant sent Mr Lim a letter.
1st Defendant went alone to Mr Lim’s office to collect the original Power of Attorney.
2nd Defendant lodged a caveat over the Property.
Buyer found for the Property, buyer pulled out of the deal.
Plaintiff granted an option to purchase to He Yi Investments Pte Ltd.
Option exercised by He Yi.
Defendants made a claim to the Property.
Proceeds of sale of the Property paid into court.
Offer to settle served on Defendants.
Trial began.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the Plaintiff was the beneficial owner of the property.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Purchase Price Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that a purchase price resulting trust was formed in favor of the Plaintiff because he paid the full purchase price of the property.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  2. Order for Proceeds of Sale

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the applicable legal principles of purchase price resulting trust.
Chia Kok Weng v Chia Kwok YeoHigh CourtYes[2017] 2 SLR 964SingaporeDefendants' reliance on this case was misplaced; the court clarified that it does not establish a legal concept of 'family ownership' of assets.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Resulting Trust
  • Purchase Price
  • OCBC Account 1
  • OCBC Account 2
  • Neo Family Assets
  • Statutory Declaration
  • Power of Attorney

15.2 Keywords

  • Trusts
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Property Dispute
  • Resulting Trust
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law95
Resulting Trust90
Purchase Price Resulting Trust85
Beneficial Ownership70
Constructive Trust60
Property Law50
Contract Law30
Deed of Indemnity25
Civil Procedure20

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Beneficial Ownership