Tay Yak Ping v Tay Nguang Kee Serene: Resulting Trusts & Family Property Dispute
In a civil appeal before the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore, Tay Yak Ping and Tay Sia Yong appealed against the High Court's decision that they held 96.07% of the sale proceeds from the Pacific Mansion Apartment on resulting trust for Tay Nguang Kee Serene. The court, comprising Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD, Woo Bih Li JAD, and Chua Lee Ming J, dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to interfere with the Judge's findings that Serene's funds were used to purchase the property. The case involved a family dispute over the beneficial ownership of the apartment's sale proceeds, with Serene claiming a resulting trust based on her contribution to the purchase price. The court also commented on the treatment of ancillary costs in resulting trust analysis.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses appeal in family dispute over Pacific Mansion Apartment sale proceeds, affirming resulting trust for sister.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tay Yak Ping | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tay Sia Yong | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tay Nguang Kee Serene | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Pacific Mansion Apartment was registered in the joint names of Tay Yak Ping and his father, Tay Sia Yong.
- Tay Nguang Kee Serene claimed that moneys beneficially owned by her had been used to pay for the Pacific Mansion Apartment.
- The High Court judge held that 96.07% of the sale proceeds of the Pacific Mansion Apartment were held on resulting trust for Serene.
- The purchase price of the Pacific Mansion Apartment was paid for mostly using the sale proceeds of the Valley Apartment.
- Serene Leather's proceeds were used to pay the purchase price of the Valley Apartment.
- Serene Leather was solely owned by Serene.
- Yak Ping paid $17,700 from his CPF account towards the stamp duty for the purchase of the Pacific Mansion Apartment.
5. Formal Citations
- Tay Yak Ping and another v Tay Nguang Kee Serene, Civil Appeal No 90 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Serene Leather business registered | |
| Father and Tay Yak Ping registered as owners of Serene Leather | |
| Booking fee paid for Valley Apartment | |
| Second deposit paid for Valley Apartment | |
| Housing loan granted for Valley Apartment | |
| Final payment made for Valley Apartment | |
| Serene Leather business terminated | |
| Mother passed away | |
| Valley Apartment sold | |
| Pacific Mansion Apartment purchased | |
| Serene discovered Yak Ping's name on Valley Apartment title | |
| Oral assurance allegedly made by Father | |
| Pacific Mansion Apartment sold | |
| Father certified to have lost mental capacity | |
| Yak Ping applied to be Father's sole deputy | |
| Serene commenced proceedings against Yak Ping and Father | |
| High Court judgment issued | |
| Civil Appeal No 90 of 2021 filed | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment delivered |
7. Legal Issues
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court held that 96.07% of the sale proceeds from the Pacific Mansion Apartment are held by the appellants on resulting trust for Serene.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Beneficial ownership of property
- Financial contribution to purchase price
- Presumption of resulting trust
- Displacement of presumption of resulting trust
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 194
- [2014] 3 SLR 1048
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
- [2016] 3 SLR 1222
- Laches
- Outcome: The court held that Serene’s claim was not barred by the doctrine of laches.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Undue delay
- Prejudice to the defendant
- Reasonableness of delay
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769
- [2019] 1 SLR 908
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Resulting Trust
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Resulting Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Trust Litigation
- Family Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tay Nguang Kee Serene v Tay Yak Ping and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 194 | Singapore | The current appeal is against the Judge’s decision in this case. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the displacement of the presumption of resulting trust. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the parties’ respective financial contributions to the purchase price of property at the time it was acquired. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding the parties’ respective financial contributions to the purchase price of property at the time it was acquired. |
| Sivagami Achi v P R M Ramanathan Chettiar and another | N/A | Yes | [1959] MLJ 221 | N/A | Cited with approval in Chiam Heng Hsien (on his own behalf and as partner of Mitre Hotel Proprietors) v Chiam Heng Chow (executor of the estate of Chiam Toh Say, deceased) and others [2014] SGHC 119 at [93] for the principle that co-partners are not estopped from proving that an alleged partner who is registered as a partner is in fact merely a nominal partner. |
| Chiam Heng Hsien (on his own behalf and as partner of Mitre Hotel Proprietors) v Chiam Heng Chow (executor of the estate of Chiam Toh Say, deceased) and others | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 119 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that co-partners are not estopped from proving that an alleged partner who is registered as a partner is in fact merely a nominal partner. |
| Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem Ibrahim | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 655 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court also looks at “the intention of the parties as appears from the whole facts of the case” in determining whether there is a partnership. |
| Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of laches requires “a substantial lapse of time coupled with circumstances where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy”. |
| Geok Hong Co Pte Ltd v Koh Ai Gek and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 908 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of laches requires “a substantial lapse of time coupled with circumstances where it would be practically unjust to give a remedy”. |
| Koh Ewe Chee v Koh Hua Leong and another | High Court | Yes | [2003] SGHC 24 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the initiation and management of a partnership alone does not indicate sole ownership or give rise to an entitlement to a greater share. |
| Chua Ka Seng v Boonchai Sompolpong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that whether a salaried partner is indeed a partner or an employee will depend on the true substance of the relationship between the parties, and not the label attached to it. |
| Curley v Parkes | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 1515 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case held that payment of solicitors’ fees and expenses “was of no part of the purchase price” for the purposes of a resulting trust. |
| Huntingford v Hobbs | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 FLR 736 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case calculated the parties’ respective beneficial shares in a property on the footing that costs of £610 incurred on top of the actual purchase price were to be treated as part of the purchase cost. |
| Samad v Thompson and another | English High Court | Yes | [2008] EWHC 2809 (Ch) | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case considered it “appropriate” to take stamp duty, legal and other fees in relation to the transaction, and mortgage fees into account in arriving at the “total acquisition cost” of the property. |
| Currie v Hamilton | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1984] 1 NSWLR 687 | Australia | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case held that, in determining the parties’ respective contributions to the cost of acquisition of the relevant property, the cost of acquisition was not merely the purchase price, but also included “incidental costs, fees and disbursements”. |
| Cong v Shen (No 3) | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2021] NSWSC 947 | Australia | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case reaffirmed that “[r]egard may be had to the incidental costs of the purchase, such as legal expenses, stamp duty and registration”. |
| Sivritas v Sivritas | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2008] VSC 374 | Australia | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case took a more nuanced approach, concluding that only costs necessarily incurred prior to and as a condition of obtaining registration of the interest which is to be held on trust should be included in the purchase price. |
| Calverley v Green | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1984) 155 CLR 242 | Australia | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case stated that “[t]he purchase price is what is paid in order to acquire the property”. |
| Wong Chor Cheung v Wong Hark Chung | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2021] HKCU 24 | Hong Kong | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case made the preliminary finding that the “total cost of the purchase” included not only the purchase price, but also other expenses in relation to the purchase of the property, namely legal fees and disbursements, stamp duty and agency fees. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | United Kingdom | Discussed in relation to whether monetary contributions towards the ancillary costs of purchasing a property should be taken into account in determining the parties’ respective beneficial shares in that property under a resulting trust. The court noted that this case refers to a presumption of resulting trust arising where one party “pays (wholly or in part) for the purchase of property which is vested either in [the other party] alone or in the joint names of [both parties]”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Resulting trust
- Beneficial ownership
- Sale proceeds
- Purchase price
- Serene Leather
- Valley Apartment
- Pacific Mansion Apartment
- Laches
- Oral assurance
- Financial contribution
15.2 Keywords
- trusts
- resulting trusts
- family dispute
- property
- Singapore
- High Court
- appeal
- sale proceeds
- beneficial ownership
- laches
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Resulting Trust | 90 |
| Trust Law | 75 |
| Equity | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Family Dispute | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
| Limitation | 20 |
| Civil Procedure | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Equity
- Property Law
- Family Law