Khoo v Khoo: Resulting Trusts & Survivorship in Joint Accounts Dispute

Khoo Phaik Eng Katherine and Khoo Phaik Lian Joyce sued Khoo Phaik Ean Patricia and Ng Eu Lin Evelyn, with a counterclaim by the defendants against the plaintiffs and Khoo Teng Jin, regarding the ownership of funds in joint bank accounts after the death of Dr. Khoo Boo Kwee. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Lee Seiu Kin J, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, declaring that the funds were held on resulting trust for Dr. Khoo's estate and dismissing the defendants' counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs; Counterclaim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over joint bank accounts after Dr. Khoo's death. Court found accounts held on resulting trust for the estate, not by survivorship.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Khoo Phaik Eng KatherinePlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualClaim Allowed in PartPartial
Khoo Phaik Lian JoycePlaintiff, Defendant in CounterclaimIndividualClaim Allowed in PartPartial
Khoo Phaik Ean PatriciaDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedDismissed
Ng Eu Lin EvelynDefendant, Plaintiff in CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedDismissed
Khoo Teng JinDefendant in CounterclaimIndividualCounterclaim DismissedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chung Ting FaiChung Ting Fai & Co
Marina ChinTan Kok Quan Partnership
Alcina ChewTan Kok Quan Partnership
Natalie NgTan Kok Quan Partnership
Jaikanth ShankarDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Waverly SeongDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Stella Ng Yu XinDavinder Singh Chambers LLC
Chan Jer HiangChan Jer Hiang & Co

4. Facts

  1. Dr. Khoo created a will in 2012 distributing his assets, including fixed deposits, equally among his four children.
  2. In October 2019, Dr. Khoo was diagnosed with liver cancer.
  3. In November 2019, Dr. Khoo added Patricia and Evelyn as co-account holders to his existing joint bank accounts.
  4. Eleven days after converting the accounts, Dr. Khoo made a codicil to his will, making some amendments but not changing the distribution of the joint accounts.
  5. The codicil directed that a cash gift of $80,000 be taken from the fixed deposits and given to Evelyn.
  6. Dr. Khoo's will stated that his house would not form part of his residuary estate.
  7. Dr. Khoo passed away in January 2021, leading to a dispute over the ownership of the funds in the joint accounts.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Khoo Phaik Eng Katherine and another v Khoo Phaik Ean Patricia and another, Suit No 150 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 314

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dr. Khoo executed his will.
Dr. Khoo was diagnosed with liver cancer.
Patricia and Evelyn were added as co-account holders to the Joint Accounts.
Dr. Khoo made a codicil to his will.
Dr. Khoo suffered an accidental fall and was hospitalized.
Dr. Khoo passed away at Changi General Hospital.
Patricia and Katherine instructed Mr. Lawrence Chua to act for them as executrices.
The will and codicil were read by Mr. Chua.
Mr. Chua filed Originating Summons No HCF/P 226/2021.
The Grant of Probate was granted.
Patricia instructed Mr. Chua to exclude the moneys in the Joint Accounts from the Schedule of Assets.
Patricia repeated her instruction to Mr. Chua to exclude the moneys in the Joint Accounts.
Katherine and Joyce met Mr. Chua and objected to Patricia's instructions.
Katherine signed a Schedule of Assets including the Joint Accounts.
Meeting between Mr. Chua, Katherine, Patricia, and Evelyn; Evelyn stated the moneys in the Joint Accounts were used to pay for Dr. Khoo’s high medical costs.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that a resulting trust arose in favor of the Estate, displacing the right of survivorship.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Gratuitous transfer of property
      • Lack of consideration
      • Retention of beneficial ownership
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 5 SLR 593
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  2. Right of Survivorship
    • Outcome: The court held that the right of survivorship was displaced by evidence of Dr. Khoo's intention to retain beneficial interest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Joint bank accounts
      • Contrary intention
      • Bank terms and conditions
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 5 SLR 593
      • [1992] SGHC 104
  3. Presumption of Advancement
    • Outcome: The court found that even if the presumption of advancement applied, it was rebutted by the evidence.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Husband to wife transfer
      • Father to child transfer
      • Rebuttal of presumption
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  4. Intention of Testator
    • Outcome: The court found clear evidence that Dr. Khoo intended to retain beneficial interest in the Joint Accounts.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of will and codicil
      • Circumstantial evidence
      • Subsequent conduct
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 783

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that moneys belong to the Estate
  2. Order for return of documents
  3. Injunction to restrain dispersal of moneys
  4. Order for an account of moneys
  5. Order for payment of interest
  6. Order for Patricia to sign and submit the Schedule of Assets

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Trust
  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Estate Planning
  • Trust Litigation
  • Family Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Estate of Yang Chun (Mrs) née Sun Hui Min, deceased v Yang Chia-YinHigh CourtYes[2019] 5 SLR 593SingaporeCited for the principles of survivorship, resulting trust, and advancement in joint bank accounts.
Tan Seng Pow v Tan Seng HockHigh CourtYes[1992] SGHC 104SingaporeCited for the principle that survivorship applies to joint bank accounts.
Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus v Sandra Audrey Jude CollarsHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 110SingaporeCited for the presumption that the survivor takes the benefit of a joint bank account absent contrary intention.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the principles of resulting trust and advancement, and the varying weight to be accorded to the presumption of resulting trust.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the principle that the presumption of resulting trust operates where there is no evidence before the court which adequately reveals the true intention of the transferor.
Ho Woon Chun (administratrix of the estate of Ho Fook Tuck, deceased) v Wang Kai QingHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 115SingaporeCited for the importance of bearing in mind the Court of Appeal’s statement in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun that the question in every case where the claim is based on the existence of a resulting trust is still whether there is any direct evidence that may adequately reveal the intention of the transferor.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the principle that the question in every case where the claim is based on the existence of a resulting trust is still whether there is any direct evidence that may adequately reveal the intention of the transferor.
Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin PengHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 783SingaporeCited for the principle that if the court could discern a clear intention on the part of the deceased to gift all the moneys in the joint account to the survivor from the evidence before it, then there should be no need to apply any presumption of a resulting trust to aid the fact-finding or decision-making process.
Low Gim Siah and others v Low Geok Khim and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 795SingaporeCited for the principle that a survivorship clause is not conclusive evidence of the parties’ intention as to ownership of the moneys in the joint account.
Saylor v Madsen EstateOntario Court of AppealYes(2006) 261 DLR (4th) 597CanadaCited for the principle that the probative value of bank documents could only be ascertained after an assessment of the totality of the relevant evidence.
Lim Choo Hin (as the sole executrix of the estate of Lim Guan Heong, deceased) v Lim Sai Ing PeggyHigh CourtYes[2022] 1 SLR 873SingaporeCited for the principle that properties were held on trust for the transferor in the face of transfer documents suggesting that the transfer had been intended as a gift.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/ACited regarding unchallenged evidence.
MF Global Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and others v Vintage Bullion DMCC (in its own capacity and as representative of the customers of the first plaintiff) and another matterHigh CourtYes[2015] 4 SLR 831SingaporeCited to define a bank account as a chose in action.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act 1909Singapore
Intestate Succession ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Resulting trust
  • Right of survivorship
  • Presumption of advancement
  • Joint accounts
  • Will
  • Codicil
  • Beneficial interest
  • Estate
  • Testamentary intention
  • Material time

15.2 Keywords

  • Trusts
  • Wills
  • Joint Accounts
  • Survivorship
  • Singapore
  • Family Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trust Law90
Resulting Trusts85
Joint bank accounts75
Wills and Probate60
Succession Law60
Family Law50
Presumption of Advancement45

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Wills
  • Succession
  • Banking Law