Tan Hui Min Sabrina Alberta v Chiang Hai Ding: Resulting & Constructive Trusts in Shophouse Ownership Dispute
In Tan Hui Min Sabrina Alberta v Chiang Hai Ding, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over the beneficial ownership of a conservation shophouse. Ms. Tan sought a declaration that she and/or Mr. Chiang were the beneficial owners, claiming a common intention constructive trust or, alternatively, a resulting trust. The court dismissed the constructive trust claim, finding insufficient evidence of a shared intention. However, it declared that Dr. Chiang held 85.71% of the beneficial interest in the property on behalf of Mr. Chiang under a resulting trust, based on Mr. Chiang's financial contributions to the property's purchase.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Second Defendant in part; Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Declaration that the First Defendant holds 85.71% of the beneficial interest in the property on behalf of the Second Defendant under a resulting trust.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses claim for beneficial ownership of shophouse based on constructive trust, finds resulting trust for Mr. Chiang.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hui Min Sabrina Alberta | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Chiang Hai Ding | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant in part | Partial | |
| Chiang Joon Arn | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant in part | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms Tan and Mr Chiang were undergoing divorce proceedings.
- Dr Chiang is the registered proprietor of 11 Martaban.
- Ms Tan sought a declaration that she and/or Mr Chiang are the beneficial owners of 11 Martaban.
- 11 Martaban was purchased for $2,100,000 in 2009.
- Mr Chiang and Dr Chiang paid approximately $520,000 and $300,000, respectively, towards the downpayment.
- The remaining purchase price was financed by a mortgage of $1,280,000 taken out in Mr Chiang’s sole name.
- The rental income from 11 Martaban was used to finance the mortgage repayments.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Hui Min Sabrina Alberta v Chiang Hai Ding and another, Suit No 141 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 259
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Marriage registered between Ms Tan and Mr Chiang | |
| Interim judgment granted in divorce proceedings | |
| Couple purchased HDB flat at Pinnacle @ Duxton | |
| Ms Tan and Mr Kwang viewed shophouses | |
| 11 Martaban purchased and registered in Dr Chiang's name | |
| Ms Tan reviewed and amended a tenancy agreement for 11 Martaban | |
| Couple decided to implement Will Back Mechanism | |
| Ms Tan diagnosed with endometrial cancer | |
| Ms Loh appointed as estate agent for 11 Martaban | |
| Ms Tan commenced divorce proceedings against Mr Chiang | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to establish a common intention constructive trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court declared that Dr. Chiang held 85.71% of the beneficial interest in the property on behalf of Mr. Chiang under a resulting trust.
- Category: Substantive
- Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that Ms Tan was entitled to assert a resulting trust where Mr Chiang is the sole beneficiary.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the 1st Defendant is holding Martaban on behalf of the Plaintiff and/or the 2nd Defendant, who are the beneficial owners of Martaban
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
- Constructive Trust
- Resulting Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Trust Litigation
- Property Disputes
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Soo Tong and others v Ho Soo Fong and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 90 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pleadings must contain essential facts supporting the cause of action. |
| Acute Result Holdings Ltd v CGS-CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd (formerly known as CIMB Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 45 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party can develop the legal consequences of facts in submissions. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of resulting trust arising when A pays for property vested in B. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of resulting trust and quantification of beneficial interest. |
| Curley v Parkes | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 1515 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a mortgagor is treated as having contributed the amount borrowed to the property's purchase price. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the court's discretion to determine the proportion of beneficial ownership and the principles of common intention constructive trust and resulting trust. |
| Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset | House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 1 AC 107 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a common intention constructive trust arises from an agreement or understanding of the parties as to whether the property is to be shared beneficially. |
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that common intention may subsist at, or subsequent to, the time in which the property was acquired. |
| Ang Hai San Henry v Ang Bee Lin Elizabeth and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 353 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that equity does not readily presume that children generally intend to make gifts to their parents. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Conservation shophouse
- Beneficial ownership
- Common intention constructive trust
- Resulting trust
- Downpayment
- Mortgage
- Matrimonial asset
- Will Back Mechanism
- Gift Narrative
15.2 Keywords
- Trusts
- Property
- Shophouse
- Singapore
- Divorce
- Beneficial Ownership
- Constructive Trust
- Resulting Trust
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Resulting Trust | 90 |
| Trust Law | 85 |
| Common Intention Constructive Trust | 80 |
| Property Law | 70 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Matrimonial Assets | 40 |
| Family Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure