Xu Zhigang v Wang Fang: Express Trusts, Gifts, Resulting Trusts, Promissory Estoppel
In Xu Zhigang v Wang Fang, before the High Court of Singapore on 2020-11-19, Xu Zhigang sued Wang Fang, claiming that two sums totaling US$9.6 million, an apartment, and a car, which were with Wang, belonged to him. Wang claimed that he had gifted them to her. The court found that the apartment and car were gifts, but the funds were held on express trust for Xu, except for $220,000 which Wang had spent with Xu's acquiescence. The court dismissed Xu's claims for the apartment and car, but allowed his claims on the United States dollar sums after deduction.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; claims for the apartment and car dismissed, but claims for the United States dollar sums allowed after deduction.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving claims over US$9.6 million, an apartment, and a car. The court found the apartment and car were gifts, but the funds were held in trust.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xu Zhigang | Plaintiff | Individual | Claims for Apartment and Car Dismissed, Claims for United States dollar Sums Allowed in Part | Lost, Partial | Tan Chee Meng, Jenny Tsin, Ho Wei Jie, Ephraim Tan Hui Rong |
| Wang Fang | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Dismissed | Lee Eng Beng, Jeremy Gan Eng Tong, Doreen Chia Ming Yee, Tao Tao |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Chee Meng | WongPartnership LLP |
| Jenny Tsin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ho Wei Jie | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ephraim Tan Hui Rong | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lee Eng Beng | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Jeremy Gan Eng Tong | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Doreen Chia Ming Yee | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Tao Tao | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Xu and Wang had an extra-marital affair from 2014 to 2017.
- Xu transferred money to Wang, which she used to purchase an apartment and a car in her name.
- Xu transferred US$2.6 million and US$7 million to Wang.
- Wang claimed the apartment, car, and money were gifts.
- Xu claimed Wang held the properties on trust for him.
- Xu faced financial difficulties in his Chinese companies.
- Xu explored options to insulate his assets from potential creditors.
5. Formal Citations
- Xu Zhigang v Wang Fang, Suit No 196 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 254
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties first met on a flight | |
| Parties met again | |
| Option to Purchase for the Apartment was signed | |
| Car was purchased | |
| Xu and Wang spent time together in China | |
| Parties began a romantic relationship | |
| Wang discovered that Xu had lied about his marital status | |
| US$2.6 million belonging to Xu was transferred to Wang | |
| Beijing Meeting was held | |
| Xu was to receive some funds from Eastport | |
| US$7 million was transferred to Wang | |
| Wang purchased a piano | |
| Wang purchased a membership at the Sentosa Golf Club | |
| The Relationship ended | |
| Xu commenced this suit | |
| Hearing began | |
| Hearing concluded | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Express Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the 1st and 2nd USD Sums were held on express trust for Xu.
- Category: Substantive
- Gifts
- Outcome: The court found that the Apartment and Car were gifts to Wang.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the transfers of the USD Sums were not intended to benefit Wang.
- Category: Substantive
- Promissory Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that Xu had acquiesced to the use of the USD Sums for Wang to purchase the Piano and the Club Membership, and as such is estopped from claiming the amounts that Wang expanded for these purchases.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Trust
- Return of Funds
- Removal of Caveat
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Trust
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Trust Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Hiok Tng (in her personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng and another (executors and trustees of the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased) and others | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 771 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a valid gift inter vivos is made when there is an intention to gift and delivery of the precise subject matter of the gift. |
| 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 the court will objectively assess the donor’s subjective intentions at the time of the property transfer. |
| The State-Owned Company Yugoimport SDPR (also known as Jugoimport-SDPR) v Westacre Investments Inc and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an express trust arises when there is certainty of intention, subject matter and object of the trust. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a resulting trust may arise independently of a presumption of resulting trust if it can be shown that the transfer was not intended to benefit the recipient. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for a common intention constructive trust, there must be a common intention between the parties as to how the beneficial interest of the property is to be held. |
| Shephard v Cartwright | House of Lords | Yes | [1955] AC 431 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the rule that subsequent conduct in the actor’s favour is inadmissible as evidence to rebut the presumption of advancement, except for conduct that is so closely connected in time to the transfer as to be part of the same transaction. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a resulting trust can apply in respect of moneys. |
| Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fock Lin | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 156 | Singapore | Cited for finding that there was a presumed resulting trust over monies. |
| United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bank of China | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 57 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of estoppel by representation. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that acquiescence is an instance of the defence of estoppel. |
| Nasaka Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Aspac Aircargo Services Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 817 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that acquiescence is an instance of the defence of estoppel. |
| Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the acquiescing party must be aware of the acts to be committed. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Express Trust
- Resulting Trust
- Gifts Inter Vivos
- Promissory Estoppel
- Beneficial Ownership
- Nominee
- Share Transfer Plan
- EP Funds
- Acquiescence
15.2 Keywords
- Trusts
- Gifts
- Estoppel
- Singapore
- High Court
- Financial Dispute
16. Subjects
- Trust Law
- Equity
- Gifts
- Estoppel
17. Areas of Law
- Trusts
- Equity
- Gifts
- Promissory Estoppel
- Resulting Trusts
- Express Trusts