Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun: Appeal on Gifts, Resulting Trusts, and Quistclose Trusts in Unmarried Couple's Dispute

In Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a dispute over gifts made between an unmarried couple, Wei Ho-Hung (Appellant) and Lyu Jun (Respondent). The case originated from a decision by a High Court Judge concerning claims made by Mr. Lyu to recover assets and sums of money transferred to Ms. Wei during their relationship. The appeal involved issues of resulting trusts, Quistclose trusts, and the intention to create legal relations. The court substantially dismissed the appeal, varying the lower court's decision only with respect to the second clinic investment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal substantially dismissed, with a variation to the Judge’s decision regarding the second clinic investment.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal concerning gifts between an unmarried couple. The court addressed resulting trusts, Quistclose trusts, and the requirement of proving donative intent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wei Ho-HungAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartialMahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash Rai, Samuel Soo Kuok Heng
Lyu JunRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualJudgment varied in partPartialLok Vi Ming SC, Qabir Singh Sandhu, Chong Xin Yi, Tan Lena

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mahesh Rai s/o Vedprakash RaiDrew & Napier LLC
Samuel Soo Kuok HengDrew & Napier LLC
Lok Vi Ming SCLVM Law Chambers LLC
Qabir Singh SandhuLVM Law Chambers LLC
Chong Xin YiGloria James Civetta & Co
Tan LenaGloria James Civetta & Co

4. Facts

  1. The parties were in a romantic relationship from May 2016.
  2. Mr. Lyu transferred substantial sums of money to Ms. Wei during their relationship.
  3. The transferred sums were used to acquire assets in Ms. Wei’s name, including an apartment.
  4. Mr. Lyu claimed the transfers were not gifts but intended for their life together as a married couple.
  5. Ms. Wei claimed the transfers were gifts of love.
  6. Mr. Lyu sought to recover assets and sums of money worth around S$8 million.
  7. Ms. Wei admitted to receiving around S$7 million.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wei Ho-Hung v Lyu Jun, Civil Appeal No 130 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 30
  2. Lyu Jun v Wei Ho-Hung, Suit No 625 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 268

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Parties met
Parties became romantically involved
Suit No 625 of 2019 filed
Judgment issued in Lyu Jun v Wei Ho-Hung [2021] SGHC 268
Civil Appeal No 130 of 2021 filed
Appeal heard
Grounds of decision delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that Ms. Wei's attempt to argue for a shared beneficial interest in the assets was a new case, not a new point, and denied her leave to raise it on appeal.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Quistclose Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that a Quistclose trust existed for the first clinic investment and US surrogacy claims because the funds were transferred for a specific purpose and not at the free disposal of Ms. Wei.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1970] AC 567
  3. Loan Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a loan agreement for the Grenadian citizenship application, based on Mr. Lyu's evidence that the money was transferred as a loan.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Leave to Raise New Points on Appeal
    • Outcome: The court denied Ms. Wei leave to raise a new point on appeal regarding a shared beneficial interest in the assets, finding it to be a new case rather than a new point.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Compensation
  2. Return of Assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Recovery of Assets

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lyu Jun v Wei Ho-HungHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 268SingaporeThe judgment under appeal. The current judgment reviews and partially overturns the findings of this case.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 121SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court may permit a new point to be raised if adequate notice has been given to the respondent.
Bintai Kindenko Pte Ltd v Samsung C&T Corp and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] 2 SLR 295SingaporeCited to distinguish between omitting to indicate an intention to seek leave under Order 56A r 9(5)(b) and failing entirely to seek the court’s leave to raise a new point.
JWR Pte Ltd v Edmond Pereira Law Corp and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 744SingaporeCited for the principle that attempting to advance a new case on appeal is an abuse of the appeal process.
North Staffordshire Railway Company v EdgeHouse of LordsYes[1920] AC 254United KingdomCited for the principle that appellate courts should be cautious about allowing new points on appeal.
Panwah Steel Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 571SingaporeCited for the principle that a point not taken at trial and presented for the first time in the Court of Appeal ought to be most jealously scrutinised.
Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments LtdHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 567United KingdomThe namesake decision which established the Quistclose trust.
Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang AngelinaHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 65SingaporeCited for the requirements of a Quistclose trust and the intention required to create a contract of loan.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 32SingaporeCited for the intention required to create a contract of loan.
Twinsectra Ltd v YardleyHouse of LordsYes[2002] 2 AC 164United KingdomLeading decision on Quistclose trusts, discussing the requirements for establishing such a trust.
Eleftheriou and others v Costi and anotherHigh CourtYes[2013] EWHC 2168 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the importance of stipulating that the transferee keep the money in a separate bank account when establishing a Quistclose trust.
Re English & American Insurance Co LtdHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 BCLC 649England and WalesCited for the importance of segregation of funds in establishing a Quistclose trust.
R v Clowes and another (No 2)Court of AppealYes[1994] 2 All ER 316England and WalesCited for the approach to determine whether a trust might have arisen over funds transferred in connection with some specified purpose or use.
Henry v HammondNot AvailableYes[1913] 2 KB 515United KingdomCited for the principle that if the terms upon which a person receives money are that he is bound to keep it separate, he is a trustee of that money.
New Zealand and Australian Land Co. v. WatsonNot AvailableYes(1881) 7 QBD 374United KingdomCited to show that the intricacies and doctrines connected with trusts should not be introduced into commercial transactions.
Re EVTR, Gilbert and another v BarberNot AvailableYes[1987] BCLC 646United KingdomCited as an example where money was advanced to solicitors with written authority to release the money for the sole purpose of buying new equipment.
Templeton Insurance Ltd v Penningtons Solicitors LLP and othersHigh CourtYes[2006] EWHC 685 (Ch)England and WalesCited as an example where the court inferred the intention to create a Quistclose trust from the broader formulation of the solicitors’ undertaking.
Cooper v PRG Powerhouse Ltd and othersNot AvailableYes[2008] 2 All ER (Comm) 964United KingdomCited as an example where it was sufficient to show that the arrangement pursuant to which the payment was made defined the purpose for which it was made in such a way that it was understood by the recipient that it was not at his free disposal.
Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 382SingaporeCited for the principle that a court may not make a finding or give a decision based on facts not pleaded.
Esso Petroleum Co Ltd v Southport CorporationHouse of LordsYes[1956] AC 218United KingdomCited for the principle that a court may not make a finding or give a decision based on facts not pleaded.
Panding v London Brick Co LtdNot AvailableYes[1971] 10 KIR 207United KingdomCited for the principle that a court may not make a finding or give a decision based on facts not pleaded.
Lloyde v West Midlands Gas BoardNot AvailableYes[1971] 1 WLR 749United KingdomCited for the principle that a court may not make a finding or give a decision based on facts not pleaded.
The Owners of the Ship “Tasmania” and the Owners of the Freight v Smith and others, The Owners of the Ship “City of Corinth” (The “Tasmania”)House of LordsYes(1890) 15 App Cas 223United KingdomCited for the principle that a point not taken at trial and presented for the first time in the Court of Appeal ought to be most jealously scrutinised.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 56A Rule 9(5)(b) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting Trust
  • Quistclose Trust
  • Donative Intent
  • Loan Agreement
  • Beneficial Interest
  • Grenadian Citizenship
  • US Surrogacy
  • Clinic Investment

15.2 Keywords

  • gifts
  • resulting trust
  • quistclose trust
  • unmarried couple
  • singapore
  • appeal
  • contract
  • loan

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Family Law
  • Appeals

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Appeals
  • Contract Law
  • Intention to Create Legal Relations
  • Trust Law
  • Quistclose Trusts
  • Gifts