Koh Lian Chye v Koh Ah Leng: Resulting & Constructive Trusts, Partnership Property Dispute
This case involves a dispute between brothers, Koh Lian Chye (Plaintiff) and Koh Ah Leng (Defendant), heard in the High Court of Singapore on 26 June 2020, concerning the beneficial ownership of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) shophouse unit. The Plaintiff claimed sole beneficial ownership based on a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel, alternatively seeking a declaration of beneficial interests. The Defendant counterclaimed that the property was partnership asset or should be held on resulting trust or presumption of advancement. The court found no common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel, ruled that the property was not a partnership asset, and determined that the property is held on a purchase price resulting trust for Plaintiff and Defendant in the ratio of 57.15:42.85. The court ordered the property to be sold in the open market.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Property held on purchase price resulting trust for Plaintiff and Defendant in the ratio of 57.15:42.85. Property to be sold in open market.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
A dispute between two brothers over a HDB shophouse unit, concerning resulting trusts, constructive trusts, and partnership property.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Lian Chye | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Beneficial interest in the Property | Partial | Bernard Stanley Doray, Foo Soon Yien, Seah Kiat Hong |
| Koh Lian Chye (Administrator of the Estate of Koh Cheng Kang, Deceased) | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | Bernard Stanley Doray, Foo Soon Yien, Seah Kiat Hong |
| Koh Ah Leng | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Beneficial interest in the Property | Partial | Chan Yew Loong Justin, Kevin Cheng, Kenji Ong Shao Qiang |
| Koh Seng Hin | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Partnership | Claim dismissed | Dismissed | Chan Yew Loong Justin, Kevin Cheng, Kenji Ong Shao Qiang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Bernard Stanley Doray | BR Law Corporation |
| Foo Soon Yien | BR Law Corporation |
| Seah Kiat Hong | BR Law Corporation |
| Chan Yew Loong Justin | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Kevin Cheng | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Kenji Ong Shao Qiang | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and Defendant are brothers.
- Father started Koh Seng Hin as a sole proprietorship in 1968 and converted it to a partnership in 1975.
- The Property was purchased in the names of Plaintiff, Defendant, and Father as legal joint tenants.
- The purchase was financed by a Mortgage Loan.
- Plaintiff applied $76,800 of his own CPF money towards discharging the Mortgage Loan.
- Father passed away on 1 June 2014.
- The Property is currently held by Plaintiff and Defendant as legal joint tenants.
5. Formal Citations
- Koh Lian Chye and another v Koh Ah Leng and another, Suit No 173 of 2017, [2020] SGHC 131
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Koh Seng Hin started as a sole proprietorship. | |
| Koh Seng Hin was converted to a partnership. | |
| Koh Seng Hin relocated its premises to the Property. | |
| HDB offered the Property for sale. | |
| Plaintiff applied CPF money towards discharging the Mortgage Loan. | |
| Plaintiff applied CPF money towards discharging the Mortgage Loan. | |
| Father prepared his last will and testament. | |
| Mortgage Loan was discharged. | |
| Father contemplated removing Plaintiff and Defendant as legal joint tenants of the Property. | |
| Father passed away. | |
| Koh Chee Keong was added as a partner of Koh Seng Hin. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found that there was no common intention constructive trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the claim in proprietary estoppel fails.
- Category: Substantive
- Partnership Asset
- Outcome: The court found that the Property is not a partnership asset.
- Category: Substantive
- Presumption of Advancement
- Outcome: The court found the claim based on the presumption of advancement baseless.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the Property is held on a purchase price resulting trust for Plaintiff and Defendant in the ratio of 57.15:42.85.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
- Account of Rental Income
- Order for Sale of Property
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Trust
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Trust Litigation
- Partnership Disputes
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chiam Heng Hsien v Chiam Heng Chow | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a change in the composition of a partnership results in a dissolution of the existing firm and the creation of a new firm. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the general approach to be taken in considering claims for the recognition of beneficial interests in a property. |
| Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proof in claims of sole beneficial interest under a common intention constructive trust. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of evidence required to prove a common intention constructive trust. |
| Bant v Bant | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2003] WASC 137 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the burden of establishing that the Property is D2’s partnership asset lies on the defendants. |
| Ponnukon v Jebaratnam | Federal Court | Yes | [1980] 1 MLJ 282 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the central inquiry remains whether there exists an agreement, or an intention to treat the property in question as partnership asset. |
| Chua Kwee Chen, Lim Kah Nee and Lim Chah In (as Westlake Eating House) and another v Koh Choon Chin | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the central inquiry remains whether there exists an agreement, or an intention to treat the property in question as partnership asset. |
| N B Menon v Abdullah Kutty | Federal Court | Yes | [1974] 2 MLJ 159 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that payments of outgoings were made from D2’s coffers because it was enjoying the (otherwise gratuitous) use of the Property. |
| Kelly v Kelly | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | (1990) 92 ALR 74 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the exclusion of the Property from D2’s balance sheet was a neutral factor. |
| 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 if there is “cogent evidence” showing that the registered co-owners of a property had in fact exercised their informed and voluntary intention to hold a property as legal joint tenants, the legal joint tenants will hold the property as beneficial joint tenants. |
| Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 654 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if the objective evidence does not show that parties reached an overt agreement on the repayment of the loan at the point it was taken out, a court would not be precluded from determining the parties’ rights based on some common intention or understanding. |
| Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah Sew | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 831 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption of advancement applies even in a relationship between a parent and an adult child. |
| Chan Gek Yong v Chan Gek Lan | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that as between P1 and D1, no presumption of advancement exists. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) s 33(1) | Singapore |
| Partnership Act s 20(1) | Singapore |
| Partnership Act s 21 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting Trust
- Constructive Trust
- Partnership Asset
- Presumption of Advancement
- Beneficial Ownership
- Legal Joint Tenants
- Mortgage Loan
- CPF Contributions
- Rental Income
- HDB Shophouse
15.2 Keywords
- trusts
- partnership
- property
- resulting trust
- constructive trust
- beneficial ownership
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Partnerships
- Property Law
17. Areas of Law
- Trust Law
- Resulting Trusts
- Constructive Trusts
- Partnership Law
- Partnerships inter se
- Partnership Property