Tay v Ho: Gift vs. Loan Dispute Over Australian Property Sale Proceeds in Divorce

In Tay Amy v Ho Toh Ying, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Justice Tan Siong Thye presided over a case concerning a dispute between Amy Tay (plaintiff) and Ho Toh Ying (defendant) regarding the proceeds from the sale of an Australian property. Amy Tay claimed that the funds, which originated from Ho Toh Ying to her son Chung Tze Hoong (CTH), were gifts and should be considered matrimonial assets in her divorce proceedings with CTH. Ho Toh Ying argued that the funds were loans to CTH. The court dismissed Amy Tay's claim, finding that she failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the funds were gifts.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute arose over proceeds from the sale of an Australian property, with the plaintiff claiming the funds were a gift and the defendant asserting they were loan repayments.

1.7 Decision Date

28 January 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Amy Tay	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Amy Tay
Ho Toh Ying	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ho Toh Ying

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Siong Thye	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Amy Tay	Independent Practitioner
Ho Toh Ying	Independent Practitioner

4. Facts

Mdm Ho provided S$1,015,089.59 for the purchase of land and construction of a house in Australia.
The Australian property was in CTH's sole name.
The Australian property was sold in 2016 for A$881,000.
A$849,990.33 was credited into a UOB account jointly held by Mdm Ho and CTH.
Mdm Tay claimed the money should be part of the matrimonial assets.
Mdm Ho claimed the money was partial repayment of loans to CTH.
Mdm Ho also made a loan of S$700,000 to her eldest son.

5. Formal Citations

Tay Amy v Ho Toh Ying, Suit No 602 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 25

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-01-01	Australian Property sold by CTH
2016-04-19	Sum credited into UOB Global Premium Account jointly held by Mdm Ho and CTH
2017-11-21	Interim judgment issued in divorce proceedings
2019-01-01	Suit instituted by Mdm Tay
2021-01-29	Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

Whether Purchase Moneys were Loans or Gifts
- Outcome: The court held that the purchase moneys were loans, not gifts.
- Category: Substantive
Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish the claim on the ground of unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Restitution of Sum to Matrimonial Assets

9. Cause of Actions

Restitution
Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

Divorce
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
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 the presumption of advancement operates only where there is no direct evidence of the parties' intentions.
UDA v UDB and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 1015	Singapore	Cited to explain that the court’s power of division under s 112 of the Women’s Charter applies only between the parties to a marriage and their assets, and does not extend to adjudicating on third parties’ claims to alleged matrimonial assets.

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

Purchase Moneys
Australian Property
Matrimonial Assets
Loans
Gifts
Presumption of Advancement

15.2 Keywords

Gift
Loan
Divorce
Matrimonial Assets
Restitution
Unjust Enrichment
Property
Singapore
High Court

16. Subjects

Gifts
Inter vivos
Restitution
Unjust enrichment
Family Law
Property Law

17. Areas of Law

Restitution
Unjust Enrichment
Family Law
Contract Law