Zaiton v Nafsiah: Unjust Enrichment & Constructive Trusts in Family Dispute
In Zaiton Binte Adom v Nafsiah Bte Wagiman and Safie Bin Jantan, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by the plaintiff, Zaiton Binte Adom, to recover $205,359.80 from the defendants, Nafsiah Bte Wagiman and Safie Bin Jantan, on grounds of constructive trust, unjust enrichment, and proprietary restitution. The court, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, dismissed most of the plaintiff's claims but ordered the second defendant, Safie Bin Jantan, to pay $205,359.80 to the plaintiff as restitution for his unjust enrichment. The case involved a complex family situation where funds were transferred between parties, and the court had to determine the legal implications of these transactions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
I have dismissed all the plaintiff’s claims save one. I have ordered the second defendant to pay $205,359.80 to the plaintiff as restitution for his unjust enrichment.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses most claims but orders restitution for unjust enrichment in a dispute involving family, property, and misused funds.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zaiton Binte Adom | Plaintiff | Individual | Partial Judgment | Partial | Mohamed Hashim Bin Abdul Rasheed |
| Nafsiah Bte Wagiman | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah, Mohammad Shafiq Bin Haja Maideen |
| Safie Bin Jantan | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Lost | Syed Ahmed Jamal Chishty |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Mohamed Hashim Bin Abdul Rasheed | Independent Practitioner |
| Abdul Rahman Bin Mohd Hanipah | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Mohammad Shafiq Bin Haja Maideen | Abdul Rahman Law Corporation |
| Syed Ahmed Jamal Chishty | A C Syed & Partners |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff sought to recover $205,359.80 from the defendants based on various legal grounds.
- The defendants, Nafsiah and Safie, were married in 1985 and divorced in 2018.
- Safie married the plaintiff, Zaiton, in 2019.
- In 2002, the defendants purchased a HDB flat as joint tenants.
- In 2015, Safie procured $205,359.80 from Zaiton and handed it to Nafsiah.
- Nafsiah used part of the money to repay the HDB Loan in full.
- The Syariah Court issued a divorce decree in 2018, awarding Nafsiah 100% of the net proceeds of sale of the flat.
5. Formal Citations
- Zaiton bte Adom v Nafsiah bte Wagiman and another, Originating Summons No 1014 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 189
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants married. | |
| Defendants purchased a Housing and Development Board flat as joint tenants. | |
| Second defendant pronounced a first talak on the first defendant. | |
| Second defendant entered into an unregistered marriage with the plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff handed a cheque of $7,256.68 to the second defendant. | |
| Plaintiff handed a cashier’s order of $198,103.12 to the second defendant. | |
| First defendant withdrew $125,717.15 from her CPF to repay the HDB Loan. | |
| First defendant transferred $30,002.68 from her CPF ordinary account to her CPF investment account. | |
| First defendant commenced divorce proceedings against the second defendant in the Syariah Court. | |
| First defendant volunteered to the Syariah Court that she had used money originating from the plaintiff to repay the HDB Loan in full. | |
| Syariah Court issued a divorce decree dissolving the defendants’ marriage. | |
| Second defendant and the plaintiff registered their marriage. | |
| Plaintiff commenced proceedings claiming $205,359.80 in full from one or both of the defendants. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court held the second defendant liable for unjust enrichment and ordered him to pay $205,359.80 to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the defendants held the sum of $205,359.80 as constructive trustees.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the defendants held the sum of $205,359.80 on a presumed resulting trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Quistclose Trust
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim that the second defendant held the sum of $205,359.80 on a Quistclose trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Proprietary Restitution
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for proprietary restitution.
- Category: Substantive
- Equitable Lien
- Outcome: The court declined to impose an equitable lien on the Flat.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Constructive Trust
- Declaration of Unjust Enrichment
- Declaration of Proprietary Restitution
- Declaration of Resulting Trust
- Declaration of Quistclose Trust
- Equitable Lien
- Tracing Order
- Surrender of Sale Proceeds
9. Cause of Actions
- Constructive Trust
- Unjust Enrichment
- Proprietary Restitution
- Resulting Trust
- Quistclose Trust
- Equitable Lien
10. Practice Areas
- Trust Law
- Restitution Law
- Family Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDA v UDB and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 1015 | Singapore | Cited by analogy to support the Appeal Board's decision that a Syariah Court does not have jurisdiction to vary a property division order in favour of a non-party to the marriage. |
| Paragon Finance plc v DB Thakerar & Co | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 All ER 400 | N/A | Cited for the general definition of a constructive trust, stating that it arises when it would be unconscionable for the owner of property to deny the beneficial interest of another. |
| Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1097 | Singapore | Cited to situate the facts within one of the specific categories and circumstances in which an institutional constructive trust arises, i.e., a person making a profit in breach of his fiduciary duty. |
| Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 333 | Singapore | Cited for the core duties of a fiduciary, i.e., the duty not to make a profit out of his fiduciary position and duty not to put himself in a position where his own interests and his duty to his principal are in conflict. |
| Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased) | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 184 | Singapore | Cited for the specific categories of unconscionability which equity recognizes as being capable of giving rise to an institutional constructive trust. |
| Guy Neale and others v Nine Squares Pty Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 249 | Singapore | Cited with approval in Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased) [2011] SGHC 184 at [53] |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that an institutional constructive trust arises in real time, without any need for B to have resort to a court of equity. |
| Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 856 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that an institutional constructive trust arises in real time, without any need for B to have resort to a court of equity. |
| Lai Hoon Woon (executor and trustee of the estate of Lai Thai Lok, deceased) v Lai Foong Sin and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 113 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions required for common intention constructive trust. |
| Sumoi Paramesvaeri v Fleury, Jeffrey Gerard and another | N/A | Yes | [2016] 5 SLR 302 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions required for common intention constructive trust. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the conditions required for common intention constructive trust. |
| National Provincial Bank Ltd v Ainsworth | N/A | Yes | [1965] AC 1175 | N/A | Cited to support the policy imperative for rights in property to be stable and for the law to allocate and alter those rights only in a manner which is transparent, consistent and predictable. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the acceptance, albeit obiter, that the power to impose a remedial constructive trust is part of Singapore law and constrained it by saying that it “is not simply a response to some broad notion of unconscionability”. |
| Bailey and another v Angove's PTY Ltd | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] UKSC 47 | United Kingdom | Cited to support the principle that English law is generally averse to the discretionary adjustment of property rights, and has not recognised the remedial constructive trust favoured in some other jurisdictions. |
| Chase Manhattan Bank NA v Israel-British Bank (London) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1981] 1 Ch 105 | N/A | Cited as authority for the proposition that equity will impose a constructive trust where property is transferred absent a mistake by the transferor or fraud by the transferee, and the transferee later makes a gratuitous promise to return said property but reneges. |
| Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 AC 349 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the state of mind of the payer must be related to the time when the payment was made. |
| Yong Ching See v Lee Kah Choo Karen | N/A | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 957 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that the plaintiff did not intend the two cashier’s orders as a loan to the defendants. |
| Re Sharpe | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 WLR 219 | N/A | Cited as a contrasting case where a promissory note was held to have expressly provided for the moneys to be repayable and was thus in the nature of a loan, not a gift. |
| Vandervell v Inland Revenue Commissioners | N/A | Yes | [1967] 2 AC 291 | N/A | Cited for the proposition that a resulting trust arises if B transfers property to T with no intention to benefit T. |
| Moh Tai Siang v Moh Tai Tong and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 280 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds on which a resulting trust may arise. |
| Bieber and others v Teathers Ltd (In Liquidation) | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2012] EWCA Civ 1466 | England and Wales | Cited for a summary of the requirements to establish a Quistclose trust. |
| Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 164 | N/A | Cited for the requirements to establish a Quistclose trust. |
| Re Goldcorp Exchange Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1995] 1 AC 74 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the question in every case is whether the parties intended the money to be at the free disposal of the recipient. |
| Quistclose Investments Ltd v Rolls Razor Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1970] AC 567 | N/A | Cited for the requirements to establish a Quistclose trust. |
| Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 65 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that a loan agreement which expressly stated the purpose of the loan did not prevent the defendant from making free use of the loan. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to succeed in a claim in unjust enrichment. |
| Benzline Auto Pte Ltd v Supercars Lorinser Pte Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 239 | Singapore | Cited for the inquiry as to whether there is a failure of basis proceeds in two parts: first, what was the basis for the transfer in respect of which restitution is sought; and second, whether that basis has failed. |
| BP Exploration Co (Libya) Ltd v Hunt (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1979] 1 WLR 783 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where a defendant receives the plaintiff’s money, there is no question that the defendant is enriched. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 418 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to the defence of change of position. |
| Rahmah v Abacha | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] EWCA 1492 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the disenrichment is not causally connected to his enrichment. |
| Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the disenrichment is not causally connected to his enrichment. |
| Scottish Equitable v Derby | N/A | Yes | [2001] 3 All ER 818 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the disenrichment is not causally connected to his enrichment. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the two senses of the term “proprietary restitution”. |
| Foskett v McKeown and others | N/A | Yes | [2001] 1 AC 102 | N/A | Cited to support the claim for proprietary restitution. |
| Philip Antony Jeyaretnam and another v Kulandaivelu Malayaperumal and others (Thirumurthy Ayernaar Pamabayan, third party; Pramela d/o Govindasamy and another, non-parties) | N/A | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 738 | Singapore | Cited in support of the prayer for an equitable lien to be imposed on the Flat. |
| Metall und Rohstoff AG v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenrette Inc | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 QB 391 | N/A | Cited for the definition of a remedial constructive trust. |
| Grimaldi v Chameleon Mining NL (ACN 098 773 785) (No 2) and another | N/A | Yes | (2012) 287 ALR 22 | Australia | Cited for the principle that a constructive trust ought not to be imposed if there are other orders capable of doing full justice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| r 9(3) of the Muslim Marriage and Divorce Rules (2001 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the AMLA”) | Singapore |
| s 52(3)(d) of the Administration of Muslim Law Act (Cap 3, 2009 Rev Ed) (“the AMLA”) | Singapore |
| s 52(6) of the AMLA | Singapore |
| s 52(14) of the AMLA | Singapore |
| s 35(2) of the AMLA | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 51 of the Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the CPF Act”) | Singapore |
| s 6(2) of the Central Provident Fund Act 1953 (2020 Rev Ed) (“the CPF Act”) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Constructive Trust
- Unjust Enrichment
- Proprietary Restitution
- Resulting Trust
- Quistclose Trust
- Equitable Lien
- HDB Flat
- CPF Account
- Syariah Court
- Property Division Order
- Failure of Basis
- Common Intention
15.2 Keywords
- trusts
- restitution
- unjust enrichment
- family dispute
- property
- Singapore law
- HDB flat
- constructive trust
- resulting trust
- Quistclose trust
- equitable lien
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Restitution
- Family Law
- Property Law
- Equity
17. Areas of Law
- Trusts
- Constructive trusts
- Institutional constructive trusts
- Remedial constructive trusts
- Resulting trusts
- Quistclose trusts
- Restitution
- Unjust enrichment
- Proprietary restitution
- Equity
- Equitable lien