Ong Chin Woon v Ong Bee Hah: Constructive & Resulting Trusts Dispute Over Family Property

In Ong Chin Woon v Ong Bee Hah, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute between siblings over a property located at 8 Jalan Jermin, the only valuable asset of their deceased mother, Tan Ah Moi. Ong Chin Woon, the plaintiff, claimed a beneficial interest in the property based on a common intention constructive trust, a resulting trust, or proprietary estoppel. The defendants, Ong's siblings (or their estates), contested the claim. The court, Lai Siu Chiu SJ, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding no evidence of a common intention or financial contribution to justify a trust or estoppel. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Siblings dispute over family property. Court dismisses plaintiff's claim of constructive or resulting trust, finding no common intention.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ong Chin WoonPlaintiffIndividualClaim dismissed with costsLost
Ong Bee HahDefendant, Co-AdministratrixIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon
Ong Yew HongDefendant, Co-AdministratrixIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon
Ng Wuay MingDefendantIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon
Ong Chin EeDefendantIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon
Ng Yee Ping GraceDefendantIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon
Ong Ah HuaDefendantIndividualClaim dismissed with costsWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yeo Choon Hsien LeslieSterling Law Corporation
Jolene TanSterling Law Corporation
Hing Shan Shan BlossomDrew & Napier LLC
Chin Tian Hui JoshuaDrew & Napier LLC
Claire Neoh Kai XinDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest in the Property based on a common intention constructive trust, a resulting trust, or proprietary estoppel.
  2. The Deceased purchased the Property in 1988.
  3. The Plaintiff alleged that he had a common intention with the Deceased that he would be the beneficial owner of the Property.
  4. The Plaintiff claimed that he contributed 83.7% of the purchase price of the Property.
  5. The defendants denied the Plaintiff's allegations and claimed that the Deceased had sufficient funds to purchase the Property.
  6. The Plaintiff took the UOF loan in the Deceased’s name for his own benefit.
  7. The Plaintiff waited until his mother passed away before launching a dishonest and unmeritorious claim against the Estate.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Chin Woon v Ong Bee Hah, Suit No 702 of 2018, [2022] SGHC 125

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Southern Tyre Co sole-proprietorship registered in the name of the Deceased.
Southern Tyre converted into a partnership with Chin Ee and the Plaintiff as partners of the Deceased.
The Father passed away.
The Plaintiff and Chin Ee were added as joint owners to the PG Property.
The Plaintiff married Geok Leng.
Family meeting held to discuss financial matters.
The Plaintiff and Geok Leng purchased a condominium unit at No 5 Newton Road #04-13 Elmira Heights.
Purchase of the Property took place.
UOF's first letter of offer.
PG Property was sold.
Completion of purchase of the Property.
Chin Ee emigrated to Canada.
Receipt issued by Goldrich to the Deceased for $136,000 evidencing her loan to the company.
UOF loan was drawn down.
UOF's letter of offer.
Exchange rate between the sterling pound and Singapore dollar was S$3.4515 to £1.00.
Renewal of £134,830.88.
The Deceased started making annual trips to Canada.
Indosuez Bank’s facility letter.
Both the Plaintiff and the Deceased formally withdrew from the partnership and Seah officially took over the business of Southern Tyre.
Letter from Plaintiff's solicitors to Chung Khiaw Bank.
The Plaintiff arranged to pay off the UOF loan in full.
The Deceased visited law firms with a view to making a will.
Ong Siew Eng passed away intestate.
The Deceased visited law firms with a view to making a will.
The Deceased visited law firms with a view to making a will.
Elmira Heights condominium was the subject of an en-bloc sale.
Family meeting held.
The Deceased visited Bee Hah at her home.
The Deceased was warded at Raffles Hospital.
The Deceased was warded at Tan Tock Seng Hospital.
Monies in her joint POSB account were to be divided equally between them and this was done on 4 February 2015, a day before her passing.
The Deceased passed away.
Gathering at the Property at the Plaintiff’s request.
Meeting of the siblings.
The Plaintiff, Yew Hong, Ee Peng and Bee Hah met the Estate’s solicitors for the first time.
The grant of letters of administration was extracted.
Family meeting held at the Property.
The Plaintiff, Chin Ee, Ee Peng, Yew Hong and Bee Hah met at Ee Peng’s house.
Ee Peng died.
The Plaintiff sent a WhatsApp message to the Estate’s chat group.
The administratrices issued the option to purchase for the Property.
The Plaintiff insisted that the administratrices distribute the sale proceeds quickly.
The Plaintiff submitted a handwritten note in Chinese setting out his claims again the Estate.
The sale was completed.
The Plaintiff through his lawyers stated for the first time that the Plaintiff had contributed substantially to the purchase of the Property.
The administratrices made a distribution of $300,000 of the sale proceeds to each beneficiary.
The Plaintiff served his writ of summons in this Suit on the administratrices.
Service of the statement of claim.
The Plaintiff requested and subsequently received a cheque for $300,000 as his share of the interim distribution from the sale proceeds of the Property.
The administratrices’ application in Summons No 1743 of 2019 filed.
Summons No 1743 of 2019 granted.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Common Intention Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish that there was a common intention between himself and the Deceased that he would be the beneficial owner of the Property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
      • [2019] 1 SLR 908
  2. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim based on a resulting trust due to his servicing of the UOF loan cannot succeed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1222
  3. Proprietary Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff failed to establish his claim based on proprietary estoppel.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2000] 3 WLR 815
      • [2012] 2 SLR 831
  4. Laches
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was barred by laches due to his prolonged, inordinate, and inexcusable delay in bringing the Suit.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 1 SLR 908
  5. Waiver
    • Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's conduct throughout the years before and after the demise of the Deceased showed he had waived his rights.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of 100% beneficial interest in the Property
  2. Payment of all sale proceeds of the Property
  3. Declaration of 83.7% beneficial interest in the Property
  4. Payment of 83.7% of the sale proceeds of the Property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Common Intention Constructive Trust
  • Resulting Trust
  • Proprietary Estoppel

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Trust Litigation
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited by the Plaintiff to support his claim, but the court found it did not assist his case because there was no evidence of the Plaintiff's contributions towards the purchase price of the Property.
Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd v Koh Ai Gek and othersCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 908SingaporeCited by the defendants. The court found the holdings of the appellate court in Geok Hong pertinent to this Suit.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited by the defendants to support the argument that the timing of a resulting trust is critical and must crystallise at the time of purchase.
Gillett v HoltN/AYes[2000] 3 WLR 815N/ACited to support the element of proprietary estoppel that there must be detriment which is substantial.
Neo Hui Ling v Ang Ah SewN/AYes[2012] 2 SLR 831N/ACited to support the element of proprietary estoppel that there must be detriment which is substantial.
See Fong Mun v Chan Yuen LanN/AYes[2013] 3 SLR 685N/ACited as the trial judge's decision in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun.

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

  • Common Intention
  • Constructive Trust
  • Resulting Trust
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • Laches
  • Waiver
  • Beneficial Interest
  • Sale Proceeds
  • Administratrices
  • UOF Loan
  • PG Property
  • Matrimonial Home

15.2 Keywords

  • Trusts
  • Property
  • Family Dispute
  • Constructive Trust
  • Resulting Trust
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Common Intention Constructive Trust90
Trust Law85
Resulting Trust75
Constructive Trust75
Proprietary Estoppel60
Estate Administration60
Estoppel50
Property Law40
Limitation40
Laches40
Waiver30
Succession Law30
Civil Procedure20
Judgments and Orders10

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Family Law
  • Equity