Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo: Accounting for Rental Income, Co-ownership, and Fiduciary Duties
In Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between two brothers, Aw Chee Peng and Aw Chee Loo, regarding rental income from properties co-owned with their father. Aw Chee Peng sought an accounting of rental income collected by Aw Chee Loo. The court, presided over by Justice Philip Jeyaretnam, ruled that Aw Chee Loo was only required to account for rental income received from January 1, 2021, onwards, due to a prior arrangement with their father and the father's subsequent loss of mental capacity. The court rejected the claim that Aw Chee Loo had an equitable duty to account.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff succeeds on his claim for an account but only for rental income received from 1 January 2021 onwards.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case involving a dispute between brothers over rental income from co-owned properties. The court addressed the statutory duty to account and equitable duties.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aw Chee Peng | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim allowed in part | Partial | |
| Aw Chee Loo | Defendant | Individual | Claim partially successful against defendant | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Philip Jeyaretnam | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and defendant are brothers and co-owners of properties with their father.
- The properties were purchased in 1989 and registered in the joint names of the plaintiff, defendant, and father.
- The father managed the properties until 2003, then left it to the defendant.
- The defendant collected rental income but did not provide an account to the plaintiff.
- The father had an arrangement with the defendant regarding the use of rental income.
- The father lost mental capacity in January 2021.
- The plaintiff commenced the suit in May 2021 seeking an account of rental income.
5. Formal Citations
- Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo, Suit No 468 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 68
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Properties purchased for $400,000. | |
| Father moved to China and left defendant to manage the properties. | |
| Renovations on No 12 completed. | |
| No 12 rented out. | |
| No 12A first rented out. | |
| Overdraft fully repaid. | |
| Plaintiff complained about income tax payments. | |
| Father executed a lasting power of attorney. | |
| Father lost mental capacity. | |
| Plaintiff requested documents from the defendant. | |
| Suit commenced. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Duty to Account
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had a statutory duty to account under s 73A of the CLPA, but this duty was modified by an arrangement with the father until January 1, 2021.
- Category: Substantive
- Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not have a separate equitable duty to account.
- Category: Substantive
- Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court found it unnecessary to consider limitation further, given the finding that the defendant’s liability to account is only for the period from 1 January 2021.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the defendant has acted in breach of his duties owed to the plaintiff to account for the rental income from the Properties
- Order for the defendant to give particulars of the rental income received, spent, and the balance
- Order for inquiries to be conducted and accounts taken of the said rental income received by the defendant
- Order restraining the defendant from expending, transferring or dealing with one-third of the balance rental income pending the outcome of this suit
- Damages to be assessed
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of duty to account
10. Practice Areas
- Accounting
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yong Kheng Leong v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited regarding the two types of constructive trustees. |
| Paragon Finance plc v D B Thakerar & Co (a firm) | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 All ER 400 | N/A | Cited regarding the two types of constructive trustees. |
| Chng Weng Wah v Goh Bak Heng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 464 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must ascertain whether the defendant has received property in circumstances sufficient to import an equitable obligation to handle the property for the benefit of another. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act | Singapore |
| Limitation Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Co-ownership
- Duty to account
- Rental income
- Arrangement
- Fiduciary duty
- Tenants in common
- Constructive trust
- Limitation Act
- Lasting power of attorney
15.2 Keywords
- co-ownership
- accounting
- rental income
- fiduciary duty
- Singapore
- property law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Liability of co-owner to account | 90 |
| Interest in land | 85 |
| Chancery and Equity | 80 |
| Account | 80 |
| Property Law | 75 |
| Limitation | 70 |
| Fiduciary relationships | 70 |
| Particular causes of action | 65 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Trusts Law
- Civil Procedure