Lau Yaw Ben v Lau Wee Hion: Resulting and Express Trusts Dispute

In Lau Yaw Ben v Lau Wee Hion and Ng Lisa, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an originating summons by Lau Yaw Ben, the father, against his son Lau Wee Hion and daughter-in-law Ng Lisa, seeking a declaration that Lau Wee Hion held certain moneys on trust for him. The court, presided over by Audrey Lim J, dismissed the application, finding that Lau Yaw Ben failed to prove the existence of an express or resulting trust. The judgment was delivered on 27 May 2022, with judgment reserved on 9 May 2022.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A father, Lau Yaw Ben, sought a declaration that his son, Lau Wee Hion, held certain moneys on trust. The court dismissed the application, finding no express or resulting trust.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lau Yaw BenPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Lau Wee HionDefendantIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Ng LisaDefendantIndividualApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Audrey LimJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. P sought a declaration that D1 held the proceeds from the sales of two properties and an inheritance sum on trust for P.
  2. P transferred Unit 473 to D1 to refinance and make part payment to RHB.
  3. Unit 473 was sold to WKS for $670,000, and $540,000 was paid to RHB.
  4. P claimed he entrusted the remaining $130,000 (473 Moneys) to D1.
  5. Unit 473A was transferred to D1 for $395,000.
  6. Unit 473A was sold for $850,000, with $530,217.78 (473A Moneys) deposited into D1’s account.
  7. P claimed he handed $82,000 (Inheritance Sum) to D1 for safekeeping.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lau Yaw Ben v Lau Wee Hion and another, Originating Summons No 764 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 130

6. Timeline

DateEvent
D1 and D2 were married.
D2 filed for divorce against D1.
Interim judgment granted in Divorce Proceedings.
D1 and D2 filed their respective affidavits of assets and means.
OS 764 commenced by P.
Law Yaw Ben’s 3rd Affidavit filed.
Plaintiff’s Written Submissions filed.
Second Defendant’s Written Submissions filed.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether an express trust was created
    • Outcome: The court found that no express trust was created.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 1 SLR 1097
  2. Whether a resulting trust was created
    • Outcome: The court found that no resulting trust was created.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGCA 69
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1222
  3. Whether the presumption of advancement applied
    • Outcome: The court found that the presumption of advancement rebutted any potential resulting trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGCA 69
      • [2020] SGCA 58
      • [1995] WLR 913
      • [2020] 5 SLR 1219

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that D1 holds moneys on trust for P

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Trusts Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 1097SingaporeCited for the principle that certainty of intention is required for the creation of an express trust.
Koh Lian Chye and another v Koh Ah Leng and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2021] SGCA 69SingaporeCited for the law on resulting trusts, the presumption of resulting trust, and the presumption of advancement.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will not rely on the presumption of resulting trust and presumption of advancement when the evidence adequately reveals the true intentions of the transferor.
Hinckley Singapore Trading Pte Ltd v Sogo Department Stores (S) Pte Ltd (under judicial management)Court of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 119SingaporeCited regarding the requirement to keep moneys separate as an indicator of a trust.
Tribe v TribeN/AYes[1995] WLR 913N/ACited for the principle that transferring properties to protect them from creditors reinforces the presumption of advancement.
Lilyana Alwi v John ArifinHigh CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 1219SingaporeCited for the principle that even if the transferor allows the transferee to use the moneys according to the transferor's wishes, this does not necessarily rebut the presumption of advancement.
Low Yin Ni and another v Tay Yuan Wei Jaycie (formerly known as Tay Yeng Choo Jessy) and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] SGCA 58SingaporeCited for the principle that the key inquiry when considering the presumption of advancement is in substance directed at discerning the presumed intention of the transferor.
R v Clowes (No 2)N/AYes[1994] 2 All ER 316N/ACited regarding the requirement to keep moneys separate as an indicator of a trust.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Express trust
  • Resulting trust
  • Presumption of advancement
  • Certainty of intention
  • Certainty of subject matter
  • Beneficial interest
  • Divest
  • Workaround
  • Clawback
  • Affidavit of assets and means

15.2 Keywords

  • Trusts
  • Express trust
  • Resulting trust
  • Property
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law