Chan Chi Cheong v Chan Yun Cheong: Trustee Retirement & Statutory Interpretation

In Chan Chi Cheong v Chan Yun Cheong, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute between two trustees of a will, Chan Chi Cheong (Plaintiff) and Chan Yun Cheong (Defendant), regarding the proper procedure for trustee retirement. The Plaintiff sought to retire under the Trustees Act, while the Defendant attempted to resign via a letter, citing the trust instrument. The court ruled that the Trustees Act requirements must be met, and ordered the Defendant to execute the necessary deeds for the Plaintiff's retirement and confirmation of a prior trustee's retirement. The court found that the Defendant had unreasonably withheld his consent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Order for Defendant to execute Plaintiff's Retirement Deed and Confirmation Deed; failing that, Registrar of the Supreme Court to execute on Defendant's behalf.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding the proper procedure for trustee retirement, focusing on the interplay between the Trustees Act and trust instruments.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chan Yun CheongDefendantIndividualOrder to execute Retirement DeedLost
Chan Chi CheongPlaintiffIndividualOrder for Defendant to execute Retirement DeedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lau Wen JinDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Paul Wong Por LukDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Menon T P BWee Swee Teow LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought to retire as trustee under s 40 of the Trustees Act.
  2. Defendant sought to resign as trustee under Clause 3 of the trust instrument.
  3. The trust instrument was a Will dated 5 February 1947.
  4. The Defendant refused to sign the Deed of Retirement and Confirmation and the Plaintiff’s Retirement Deed.
  5. The Plaintiff commenced Originating Summons No. 703 of 2019.
  6. The Defendant argued that he is no longer a trustee and, therefore, can no longer provide his consent.
  7. The Plaintiff argued that the only way a trustee can resign is in accordance with s 40 of the Trustees Act.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Chi Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator) v Chan Yun Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator), Originating Summons No 703 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 43

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Will dated
Testator passed away
Probate of the Will was granted
Grant of Probate of the Will was resealed in The Colony of Singapore
Chan Sze Chuen appointed as an additional trustee
Chan Chak Cheong appointed as an additional trustee
Chan Fatt Cheung and Chan Chee Chiu were appointed as additional trustees
Chan Fatt Cheung resigned as trustee
Deed of Appointment executed
Plaintiff sent letter regarding intention to be discharged as trustee
Defendant purported to resign as trustee
Hearing date
Hearing date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Trustee Retirement
    • Outcome: The court held that the Defendant's Letter of Resignation was not an effective and valid discharge, and he remains a trustee. An effective resignation in this case must be pursuant to the requirements under s 40 of the Trustees Act, ie, by way of a deed of retirement and a deed of consent to the discharge from the co-trustees.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compliance with Trustees Act
      • Validity of Resignation by Letter
      • Consent of Co-Trustees
  2. Statutory Interpretation
    • Outcome: The court held that the provisions of the Trustees Act that are expressly or impliedly in contravention of or inconsistent with the trust instrument will not override the powers of the trustee under the trust instrument.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Application of Trustees Act
      • Contrary Intention in Trust Instrument
  3. Enforcement of Orders
    • Outcome: The court ordered the Defendant to execute both the Plaintiff’s Retirement Deed and Chan Fatt Cheung’s Deed of Retirement and Confirmation within 14 days of the date of this order, failing which the Registrar of the Supreme Court is hereby directed to execute the Deeds on the Defendant’s behalf.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compelling Consent
      • Registrar's Power to Execute Deeds
  4. Inherent Powers of the Court
    • Outcome: The court held that it has inherent powers to grant the Plaintiff’s application, including the power to compel the Defendant to provide his consent to the retirement of the Plaintiff as it is unfair and unreasonable, under the circumstances of this case, not to grant his consent.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Preventing Injustice
      • Abuse of Process

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order directing the Defendant to execute the Deed of Retirement and Confirmation and the Plaintiff’s Retirement Deed
  2. Order directing the Registrar of the Supreme Court to execute both Deeds on behalf of the Defendant

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for Trustee Retirement
  • Application for Order Directing Execution of Deeds

10. Practice Areas

  • Trusts
  • Retirement of Trustees
  • Enforcement of Judgments and Orders
  • Inherent Powers

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Leo Teng Choy v Leo Teng Kit and othersCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 636SingaporeCited to determine whether a section constitutes a power conferred on trustees under the Trustees Act.
London Regional Transport Pension Fund Trustee Co Ltd v HattN/AYes[1993] PLR 227N/ACited to support the argument that s 38(1) of the Trustees Act was susceptible to contrary intention in a trust instrument.
Rajabali Jumabhoy and others v Ameerali R Jumabhoy and othersCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 434SingaporeCited to define what constitutes a “contrary intention” under s 2(2) of the Trustees Act.
In re WarrenN/AYes[1939] Ch 684N/ACited to construe the meaning of 'contrary intention' in relation to trustee investment powers.
Inland Revenue Commissioners v BernsteinCourt of AppealYes[1961] Ch 399England and WalesCited for the 'fair reading' approach to determine contrary intention in trust instruments.
In re Evans’s SettlementN/AYes[1967] 1 WLR 1294N/ACited to show that the existence of an express power of advancement in a settlement did not exclude the statutory power of advancement.
Rajabali Jumabhoy and others v Ameerali R Jumabhoy and othersN/AYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 296SingaporeCited to support the argument that a trustee may only retire if after his discharge there will be either a trust corporation or at least two individuals to act as trustees to perform the trust.
Davis v Richards & Wallington Industries LtdN/AYes[1991] 2 All ER 563N/ACited as authority for the proposition that in certain circumstances a written resignation by a trustee may be effective although it is not in the form of a deed.
Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another v Lau Siew KimN/AYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited to show that the court can exercise its power under s 14 of the SCJA and order the defaulting parties to execute a transfer of assets when there was no pre-existing order or judgment.
AQR v AQSHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 139SingaporeCited to show that the court can exercise its power under s 14 of the SCJA and order the defaulting parties to execute a transfer of assets when there was no pre-existing order or judgment.
Roberto Building Material Pte Ltd and others v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2003] 2 SLR(R) 353SingaporeCited to show that the inherent jurisdiction of the court should only be exercised in special circumstances where the justice of the case so demands.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManN/AYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117SingaporeCited to show that if there is an existing rule already covering the situation at hand, the courts would generally not invoke its inherent powers under O 92 r 4.
Cheong Wei Chang v Lee Hsien Loong and another matterN/AYes[2019] 3 SLR 326SingaporeCited to summarise the requirements to invoke the inherent powers of the court.
Hwa Soo Chin v Personal Representatives of the Estate of Lim Soo Ban, deceasedN/AYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited to show that the court also has as part of its inherent jurisdiction the power to remunerate trustees.
Re Duke of Norfolk’s Settlement TrustsN/AYes[1982] Ch 61N/ACited to show that the court has an inherent jurisdiction to authorize payment of remuneration to trustees.
In re WrightsonN/AYes[1908] 1 Ch 789N/ACited to show that the court would have jurisdiction to do that which is one of the incidents to the execution of the trusts, namely, do that which is necessary for the preservation of the trust property or the welfare of the cestuis que trust.
In the Matter of the E A Scott 1991 Children’s Settlement No 1N/AYes[2012] EWHC 2397 (Ch)N/ACited to show that the court can remove a trustee if the trustee's hostility is affecting the welfare of the beneficiaries.
Cowan and others v Scargill and othersN/AYes[1985] Ch. 270N/ACited to show that trustees may also be removed where one invests based on considerations other than the interests of the beneficiaries.
Moore v M’GlynnN/AYes[1894] 1 Ir.R. 74N/ACited to show that trustees may also be removed where one sets up a rival business that conflicts with his duties as a trustee.
Walker v WalkerN/AYes[2010] W.T.L.R. 1617N/ACited to show that trustees may also be removed where one ignores one’s duties.
Letterstedt (now Vicomtesse Montmort) v Broers and anotherN/AYes[1884] 9 App Cas 371N/ACited to show that the main guide for the court must be the welfare of the beneficiaries.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), O 92 r 4

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed)Singapore
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed), s 40Singapore
Trustees Act (Cap 337, 2005 Rev Ed), s 2Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), s 14Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed), s 18Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trustee
  • Retirement
  • Resignation
  • Trustees Act
  • Deed of Retirement
  • Trust Instrument
  • Consent
  • Beneficiaries
  • Disputed Transaction
  • Letter of Resignation

15.2 Keywords

  • Trustee
  • Retirement
  • Resignation
  • Trustees Act
  • Trust Instrument
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Will
  • Deed
  • Consent

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law90
Trustees70
Civil Procedure60
Statutory Interpretation50
Judgments and Orders40
Inherent Power of the Court30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Trustees
  • Retirement
  • Statutory Interpretation
  • Civil Procedure
  • Judgments and Orders
  • Enforcement
  • Inherent Powers