Baker v BCS Business Consulting: Accounting for Trust Assets & Trustee Duties

Michael A Baker, executor of Chantal Burnison's estate, appealed against the Singapore International Commercial Court's decision regarding the account of trust assets held by BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd, Marcus Weber, and Renslade Holdings Limited. The court found that the respondents, as trustees, failed to adequately justify certain expenses deducted from the trust assets. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, reversing the lower court's decision regarding two specific deductions.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding trustee's duty to account for trust assets. Court found trustee failed to properly justify expenses, reversing lower court's decision.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
BCS Business Consulting Services Pte LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Marcus WeberRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Renslade Holdings LimitedRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Michael A Baker (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased)Appellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Arjan SikriInternational JudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kevin ElbertTSMP Law Corporation
Thio Shen YiTSMP Law Corporation
Goh Enchi JeanneTSMP Law Corporation
Ee Eng Yew JustinTSMP Law Corporation
Tay Hong Zhi GeraldDrew & Napier LLC
Woo Shu YanDrew & Napier LLC
Lim Qiu Yi, ReginaDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Chantal Burnison and Marcus Weber had an oral agreement to form a trust.
  2. BCS and Renslade held rights to Ethocyn inventions and patents as trust assets.
  3. Weber was required to provide a detailed account of transactions related to the trust assets.
  4. Weber provided a Partial Account and later a Combined Account of the trust assets.
  5. The appellant challenged the 'Other Outgoings' entry of US$3,659,469.30 due to lack of documentation.
  6. The SICC declined to falsify two deductions of US$340,000 and US$50,000.
  7. The appellant appealed the SICC's decision regarding the two deductions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased)vBCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others, Civil Appeal No 3 of 2022, [2022] SGCA(I) 8

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit 3 filed in Singapore International Commercial Court
Singapore International Commercial Court issued Suit 3 Judgment
Respondents filed Partial Account
Appeal filed in CA/CA 76/2020
Respondents filed Combined Account
Appellant filed SUM 25
Judgment reserved
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the respondents breached their duty as trustees by failing to provide proper justification and documentation for the deductions made from the trust assets.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide proper accounting
      • Unjustified deductions from trust assets
    • Related Cases:
      • [2022] SGCA(I) 7
      • [2022] 3 SLR 252
      • [2020] 4 SLR 85
      • CA/CA 76/2020
  2. Falsification of Accounts
    • Outcome: The court held that the respondents failed to discharge their burden of proof in justifying the deductions, leading to the falsification of the accounts.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Burden of proof on trustee to justify disbursements
      • Sufficiency of evidence for deductions
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 4 SLR 714
      • [2021] SGCA 24

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Payment of sums due on the taking of account
  2. Falsification of accounts

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Failure to Account

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • Consulting

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and others v Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased)Court of AppealYes[2022] SGCA(I) 7SingaporeCompanion case to the present appeal, sharing the same terms of reference and abbreviations.
Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2022] 3 SLR 252SingaporeThe judgment being appealed against, concerning the falsification of expenses in the respondents' account of trust assets.
Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 85SingaporeThe Suit 3 Judgment established the existence of the trust and the respondents' duty to provide an account of the Trust Assets and Trust Moneys.
Baker, Michael A (executor of the estate of Chantal Burnison, deceased) v BCS Business Consulting Services Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYesCA/CA 76/2020SingaporeThe appeal that upheld the Suit 3 Judgment, affirming the existence of the trust and the respondents' duty to provide an account.
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and othersUnknownYes[2019] 4 SLR 714SingaporeCited for the principle that when a beneficiary falsifies an entry in the account, the burden lies on the trustee to prove that the disbursement was authorised.
Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and another v Lavrentiadis, Lavrentios and another appeal and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 24SingaporeCited for the principle that when a beneficiary falsifies an entry in the account, the burden lies on the trustee to prove that the disbursement was authorised.
Pearse v GreenUnknownYesPearse v Green (1819) 1 Jac & W 135England and WalesCited for the principle that the duty of a trustee to be constantly ready with his account is the “first duty” of a trustee.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherUnknownYes[2012] 4 SLR 339SingaporeCited for the principle that the duty of a trustee to be constantly ready with his account is the “first duty” of a trustee.
Ball v Ball and anotherHigh Court of JusticeYes[2020] EWHC 1020 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the requirements of what a trustee must provide in an account to the beneficiaries.
Lalwani Shalini Gobind and another v Lalwani Ashok BherumalHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 90SingaporeCited for the principle that the trustee must give “proper, complete, and accurate justification and documentation for his actions as a trustee.
Maintemp Heating & Air Conditioning Inc v Momat Developments Inc et alUnknownYesMaintemp Heating & Air Conditioning Inc v Momat Developments Inc et al (2002) 59 OR (3d) 270CanadaCited for the principle that the onus of proof to explain the trustee’s disbursements is on the trustee.
Kemp v BurnUnknownYesKemp v Burn (1863) 4 Giff 348England and WalesCited for the principle that the duty to render proper accounts when called upon was clearly not performed.
Augustus Terence Chaine-Nickson v The Bank of Ireland and orsHigh CourtYes[1976] IR 393IrelandCited for the principle that the trustees’ obligation to account is not satisfied by merely giving particulars of payments made by them, but extends to providing copies of the trust accounts and information as to the investments which represent the trust fund.
Best & anor v Ghose & orsHigh CourtYes[2018] IEHC 376IrelandCited for the principle that the information required depends on the nature of the fund or property.
Ross v RossUnknownYesRoss v Ross (1896) SC 67ScotlandCited for the principle that the court may make some allowances for a lay trustee’s accounting.
Sveinson v Sveinson EstateCourt of Queen’s BenchYes[2012] MJ No 26CanadaCited for the principle that an executor could not be credited with the full amount for work that he claimed to have done for the estate when there were no reliable records of the tasks which he had done and the time which he had spent doing them.
Lau Koon Ying Matthew as the Executor of the estate of Lau Yiu Wing, deceased v Lau Tark Wing and anotherCourt of First InstanceYes[2019] HKCU 1595Hong KongCited for the principle that the proposed deduction of expenses by the accounting party in relation to rental proceeds were not supported by documentation.
Wecomm Limited v RosenhoizHigh CourtYes[2004] EWHC 1854 (QB)England and WalesCited for the principle that the plaintiff company was entitled to recover money from the defendant, given that the money was received by him but “has disappeared in dubious circumstances where it is said that it has gone to a shadowy figure”.
Chan Fuk Tai & ors v Chan Wai MingCourt of First InstanceYes[2020] HKCU 1567Hong KongCited for the principle that the fact and quantum of payment were sufficiently proved based on the oral testimony from a contractor who confirmed that the works were indeed performed, verified the amounts in the invoices, and that the administrator had properly paid these amounts to him.
Christensen v Christensen and anotherSupreme CourtYes[1954] QWN 37AustraliaCited for the principle that oral evidence of disbursements may be allowed in the absence of vouchers.
Exsus Travel Ltd and others v Turner and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2014] EWCA Civ 1331England and WalesCited for the principle that how the burden is discharged will vary from case to case.
Excel Courage Holdings Ltd and another v Wong Sin Lai, also known as Wong Sin Lei and othersCourt of First InstanceYes[2016] HKCU 440Hong KongCited for the principle that the absence of documentation in circumstances where some documentation of the money trail was expected meant that the defendant could not establish the alleged payment.
Libertarian Investments Ltd v HallCourt of Final AppealYesLibertarian Investments Ltd v Hall (2013) 16 HKCFAR 681Hong KongCited for the principle that where the absence of evidence is the consequence of the fiduciary’s own breach of duty, the court may nevertheless, among other things, “make every assumption against the party whose conduct has deprived it of necessary evidence”.
Malhotra v DhawanUnknownYesMalhotra v Dhawan [1997] 8 Med LR 319England and WalesCited for the principle that where relevant documents have been destroyed, the presumption is applied by drawing inferences or making assumptions contrary to the interests of the party responsible for such destruction, although such inference must also be consistent with the other evidence.
Katharine Myfanwy McNally & 7 Ors v Nicholas Peter Harris & 5 Ors (No. 3)Supreme CourtYes[2008] NSWSC 861AustraliaCited for the principle that the presumption is more applicable in a situation where an assessment of value or damages has become problematic due to wrongdoing by a trustee.
Tang Tak Sum and another v Tang Kai FongCourt of First InstanceYes[2020] HKCU 582Hong KongCited for the principle that the court disregarded the trustee’s claim as to the amount of rent received for the period, in favour of the amount claimed by the beneficiary and which, on the trustee’s admission, he had been receiving annually since 1 April 1995.
Lavrentiadis, Lavrentios v Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 146SingaporeCited for the principle that an “investment swap” allegedly entered into on behalf of the plaintiff was not in fact entered into as, among other things, there was no document whatsoever evidencing the agreement to enter into the swap.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trust Assets
  • Trust Moneys
  • Other Outgoings
  • Falsification of Accounts
  • Burden of Proof
  • Duty to Account
  • Ethocyn
  • Trustee
  • Beneficiary

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • accounting
  • falsification
  • trustee
  • beneficiary
  • Ethocyn
  • Singapore
  • appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law90
Trusts and Estates85
Duty to Account85
Trust Assets80
Remedies75
Falsification of Accounts70
Chancery and Equity70
Burden of proof65
Accounting and Inquiry60
Evidence Law50
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Accounting
  • Civil Litigation