Siraj Ansari v Juliana Bahadin: Trust Deed Validity & Trustee Removal Dispute

In Siraj Ansari bin Mohamed Shariff v Juliana bte Bahadin and another, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the validity of a Trust Deed. Siraj Ansari, the plaintiff, sought to set aside the Trust Deed, arguing it was a sham to evade Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD). The defendants, Juliana bte Bahadin and Mirza bin Juliana, counterclaimed for Siraj's removal as trustee. The court, presided over by Kannan Ramesh J, ruled that the Trust Deed was a bona fide instrument and not a sham, dismissing Siraj's claim and allowing the defendants' counterclaim for his removal as trustee.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed and the defendants succeed in their counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court rules Trust Deed valid, not a sham for ABSD evasion. Plaintiff's claim dismissed, counterclaim for trustee removal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

7 August 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Siraj Ansari bin Mohamed Shariff	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Sean Muhammad Marican of A Mohamed Hashim Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed of A Mohamed Hashim Sofia Bennita Mohamed Bakhash of A Mohamed Hashim
Juliana bte Bahadin	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Allowed	Won	Toh Wei Qing, Geraldine of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Kirindeep Singh of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Salem Ibrahim of Salem Ibrahim LLC Bernice Goh of Salem Ibrahim LLC Rebecca Yeo of Salem Ibrahim LLC Shim Eunkyung of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Mirza bin Juliana	Defendant	Individual	Counterclaim Allowed	Won	Toh Wei Qing, Geraldine of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Kirindeep Singh of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP Salem Ibrahim of Salem Ibrahim LLC Bernice Goh of Salem Ibrahim LLC Rebecca Yeo of Salem Ibrahim LLC Shim Eunkyung of Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kannan Ramesh	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Sean Muhammad Marican	A Mohamed Hashim
Mohamed Hashim bin Abdul Rasheed	A Mohamed Hashim
Sofia Bennita Mohamed Bakhash	A Mohamed Hashim
Toh Wei Qing, Geraldine	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Kirindeep Singh	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Salem Ibrahim	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Bernice Goh	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Rebecca Yeo	Salem Ibrahim LLC
Shim Eunkyung	Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff and first defendant are husband and wife.
They executed a Trust Deed in favor of their son, the second defendant, over a property.
Plaintiff sought to set aside the Trust Deed, claiming it was a sham to evade ABSD.
Defendants counterclaimed for the plaintiff's removal as trustee.
The court found the Trust Deed was executed for the bona fide purpose of benefiting the second defendant.
The court found the plaintiff failed to act in the best interest of the second defendant.
The court found the plaintiff placed his personal interest in conflict with that of the second defendant.

5. Formal Citations

Siraj Ansari bin Mohamed Shariff v Juliana bte Bahadin and another, Suit No 280 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 186

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1999-05-29	Plaintiff and first defendant married.
2012-05-11	Plaintiff and first defendant purchased Bowmont Gardens.
2015-03-02	Trust Deed executed.
2015-03-04	Option to Purchase issued.
2015-04-07	Option to Purchase exercised.
2015-05-06	Sale and purchase agreement entered into.
2017-06-14	IRAS initiated an audit.
2017-07-24	Declaration form to IRAS signed.
2018-07-16	First defendant left SingHealth.
2020-05-01	Plaintiff and first defendant's marriage broke down.
2020-06-27	Defendants and Matin moved into the Trust Property.
2020-09-28	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter regarding division of matrimonial assets.
2020-10-14	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter of demand.
2020-11-04	First defendant filed for divorce in the Syariah Court.
2020-11-10	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a letter challenging the validity of the Trust Deed.
2022-02-22	Trial began.
2022-04-29	Judgment reserved.
2022-08-08	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Trust Deed
- Outcome: The court held that the Trust Deed was a bona fide instrument and not a sham.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Sham trust
  - Evasion of Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty
- Related Cases:
  - [1967] 2 QB 786
  - [2013] 2 SLR 715
Removal of Trustee
- Outcome: The court ordered the removal of the plaintiff as trustee of the Trust Property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Breach of trust
  - Conflict of interest
  - Want of reasonable fidelity
- Related Cases:
  - [1990] 1 SLR(R) 369

8. Remedies Sought

Setting aside the Trust Deed
Declaration of legal and beneficial ownership of the Trust Property
Declaration that the defendants hold the Trust Property on resulting trust and/or constructive trust for the plaintiff and first defendant
Removal of Plaintiff as Trustee

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Trust
Misrepresentation
Mistake
Undue Influence
Unconscionable Conduct

10. Practice Areas

Trusts
Breach of Trust
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Legal

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Edler v Auerbach	English decision	Yes	[1950] 1 KB 359	England	Cited for the principle that a court must consider illegality if it is apparent from the relevant facts.
Fan Ren Ray and others v Toh Fong Peng and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 117	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court must consider illegality if it is apparent from the relevant facts.
Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd v Chenab Contractor Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 375	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court must consider illegality if it is apparent from the relevant facts.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1256	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defendants were able to fully address this issue at trial and in their closing submissions.
Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 786	England	Cited for the definition of a 'sham' in law.
Chng Bee Kheng and another (executrixes and trustees of the estate of Fock Poh Kum, deceased) v Chng Eng Chye	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 715	Singapore	Cited for the applicable legal principles in determining whether a document is a sham.
National Westminster Bank plc v Rosemary Doreen Jones	England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division)	Yes	[2001] 1 BCLC 98	England	Cited for the principle that the person alleging that a document is a sham has the burden of proving that the parties intended the document to be a pretence.
AG Securities v Vaughan	House of Lords	Yes	[1990] 1 AC 417	England	Cited for the principle that the court may consider the subsequent actions of parties to determine whether or not parts of the agreements are a sham.
Yusof bin Ahmad and others v Hongkong Bank (Singapore) Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 369	Singapore	Cited for the test for whether a trustee should be removed.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Income Tax Act 1947	Singapore
Stamp Duties Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Trust Deed
Trust Property
Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty
Trustee
Beneficiary
Sham instrument
Bona fide
Irrevocable trust
Rental income
Sale proceeds

15.2 Keywords

Trust
Trust Deed
ABSD
Singapore
Property
Trustee
Beneficiary
Sham

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Trust Law	95
Illegality and public policy	90
Fraud and Deceit	80
Misrepresentation	70
Contract Law	70
Breach of Trust	60
Fiduciary Duties	50

16. Subjects

Trusts
Contract Law
Property Law
Civil Procedure