Bhojwani v Bhojwani: Trust Account, Res Judicata & Trustee Powers

In Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani, before the High Court of Singapore on 9 March 2020 and 8 October 2020, the Husband sought a declaration that prior court orders requiring him to provide an account of trust property to the Wife were no longer operative, or alternatively, for a variation of those orders. The Husband argued that deeds executed after a prior appeal excluded the Wife as a beneficiary. The court granted the Husband's application in part, ordering him to provide an account of the trust property until 9 January 2020, the day before the new deeds were executed. Both parties have filed appeals.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application granted in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Husband sought to halt trust account to Wife. Court partially granted, ordering account until Wife's beneficiary status ended. Res judicata, trustee powers examined.

1.7 Decision Date

7 October 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani	Plaintiff	Individual	Application granted in part	Partial	Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan of Niru & Co LLC Liew Teck Huat of Niru & Co LLC Ow Jiang Meng Benjamin of Niru & Co LLC Ho Jun Yang Joshua of Niru & Co LLC
Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani)	Defendant	Individual	Partial Success	Partial	Chang Man Phing Jenny of WongPartnership LLP Gavin Neo Jia Cheng of WongPartnership LLP Khoo Kiah Min Jolyn of WongPartnership LLP Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC of WongPartnership LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Puay Boon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kanapathi Pillai Nirumalan	Niru & Co LLC
Liew Teck Huat	Niru & Co LLC
Ow Jiang Meng Benjamin	Niru & Co LLC
Ho Jun Yang Joshua	Niru & Co LLC
Chang Man Phing Jenny	WongPartnership LLP
Gavin Neo Jia Cheng	WongPartnership LLP
Khoo Kiah Min Jolyn	WongPartnership LLP
Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

The Husband was a trustee of a trust under the Will of his father, the Testator.
The Wife was a beneficiary of the trust.
The Husband executed a Deed of Advancement and a Deed and Deed of Appointment, purporting to exclude the Wife as a beneficiary.
The Wife sought an account of the trust property from the Husband.
The Husband argued that the Wife was no longer entitled to an account because she was no longer a beneficiary.
The Wife argued that the deeds were invalid and that she remained entitled to an account.
The Court of Appeal had previously affirmed an order requiring the Husband to provide an account of the trust property to the Wife.

5. Formal Citations

Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani), Originating Summons No 1339 of 2019 and Summonses Nos 5872 of 2019 and 138 of 2020, [2020] SGHC 216

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-10-20	Will of Harkishindas Ghumanmal Bhojwani made
2007-03-04	Harkishindas Ghumanmal Bhojwani passed away
2008-02-12	Probate granted to Mr. Moti
2008-08-01	Clause 5 Shares transferred to the Husband
2016-10-12	Branksome Property transferred to the Wife
2017-10-05	Wife filed for divorce
2017-12-18	Wife filed application in OS 1407/2017 seeking an account of the trust property
2018-01-18	Judgment given in HC/OS 1229/2017
2018-10-29	Interim judgment granted in divorce proceedings
2018-11-21	High Court gave brief reasons for its decision
2019-02-27	Appeal against decision by the Wife in CA/CA 19/2018 was dismissed by the Court of Appeal
2019-09-17	Court of Appeal heard the appeal in CA 231/2018
2019-10-03	Husband executed a Deed of Advancement
2019-10-08	Deed of Advancement sent by the Husband’s solicitors to the Wife’s solicitors, Mr Sandeep’s solicitors, Mr Devin, and Mr Dilip
2019-10-24	Husband filed the application in OS 1339/2019
2019-12-03	Husband filed a suit against the Wife, Mr Devin, Mr Sandeep, and the Wife’s solicitors in the divorce proceedings, in HC/S 1242/2019
2019-12-06	Husband obtained an interim injunction order in HC/ORC 8158/2019
2019-12-16	Defendants in S 1242/2019 sought to set aside the Interim Injunction Order
2020-01-10	Husband executed a Deed and a Deed of Appointment
2020-03-09	Court allowed the application in SUM 138/2020, and proceeded to consider OS 1339/2019 and HC/SUM 5872/2019
2020-03-09	Judgment was given in these proceedings
2020-03-10	Husband filed an amended OS 1339/2019
2020-03-27	Live Companies brought separate proceedings in HC/OS 365/2020
2020-04-09	Leave was granted to withdraw SUM 3013/2019
2020-10-08	Date of Judgment

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that issue estoppel applied to some of the Husband's arguments, but not to others. The extended doctrine of res judicata also applied to some of the Husband's arguments.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Issue estoppel
  - Extended doctrine of res judicata
  - Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] 2 SLR 12
Trustee's Powers
- Outcome: The court found that the Husband, as trustee, had the power to exclude the Wife from any future distribution of the trust property, and that this power was exercised by the Deed and Deed of Appointment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Power of appointment
  - Power of advancement
  - Trustee's discretion
- Related Cases:
  - [1972] 2 WLR 376
  - (2015) 18 ITELR 447
Entitlement to Account
- Outcome: The court held that the Wife remained entitled to an account of the trust property for the period during which she was a beneficiary, even though she was no longer a beneficiary at the time of the application.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that prior court orders were inoperative
Order that the Husband not be required to furnish an account of the trust property
Modification or variation of prior court orders
Stay of execution of prior court orders

9. Cause of Actions

Application for a declaration that prior court orders were no longer operative
Application for a variation of prior court orders

10. Practice Areas

Trust Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani (alias Mrs Lakshmi Jethanand Bhojwani) v Moti Harkishindas Bhojwani	High Court	Yes	[2019] 3 SLR 356	Singapore	Cited for the background facts of the case, including the application by the Wife for Mr. Moti to give an account of the trust property and the summary of the assets in the Clause 5 and Clause 7(b) Trusts.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other matters	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 12	Singapore	Cited for the principles of res judicata, including cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the factors a court should consider when determining whether there is an abuse of process under the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Kain v Hutton	New Zealand Supreme Court of Wellington	Yes	[2008] 3 NZLR 589	New Zealand	Cited for the distinction between the power of advancement and the power of appointment in trust law.
Blausten v Inland Revenue Commissioners	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1972] 2 WLR 376	England and Wales	Cited as authority for the proposition that a trustee can validly appoint property among two or more objects of the trust while excluding altogether one or more objects.
Re New Huerto Trust	Eastern Caribbean Court of Appeal	Yes	(2015) 18 ITELR 447	British Virgin Islands	Cited as authority for the proposition that a trustee can validly appoint property among two or more objects of the trust while excluding altogether one or more objects, even in advance of appointing any capital to the other named beneficiaries.
Haw Par Bros (Pte) Ltd v Dato Aw Kow	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1971–1973] SLR(R) 813	Singapore	Cited by the Husband to support his argument that where the factual substratum of a prior court order had changed, the order could be rendered inoperative. The court distinguished this case.
Hoban Steven Maurice Dixon and another v Scanlon Graeme John and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 770	Singapore	Cited by the Husband to support his argument that where the factual substratum of a prior court order had changed, the order could be rendered inoperative. The court distinguished this case.
Harmonious Coretrades Pte Ltd v United Integrated Services Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 206	Singapore	Cited for the scope of the court’s inherent power to set aside a prior court order to prevent injustice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 185, 1970 Rev Ed) s 167(5)	Singapore
Finance Act 1958 (c 56)	United Kingdom

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Trust
Trustee
Beneficiary
Deed of Advancement
Deed of Appointment
Power of Appointment
Power of Advancement
Res Judicata
Issue Estoppel
Account
Discretionary Trust

15.2 Keywords

Trust
Trustee
Beneficiary
Account
Res Judicata
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	90
Res Judicata	75
Chancery and Equity	70
Extended doctrine of res judicata	65
Judgments and Orders	60
Estate Administration	50
Trustees	50
Civil Procedure	40
Powers	40
Damages	30

16. Subjects

Trust Law
Equity
Civil Procedure
Res Judicata