Er Kok Yong v Tan Cheng Cheng: Constructive & Resulting Trusts Dispute over BMW M6 Ownership
In Er Kok Yong v Tan Cheng Cheng, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 10 March 2023, Er Kok Yong claimed sole beneficial ownership of a BMW M6 registered in the name of the deceased, Spencer Tuppani, against Tuppani's co-administratrixes, Tan Cheng Cheng, Tan San San and Keh Lay Hong. The defendants denied the claim and counterclaimed for S$1,108,076.00. The court dismissed both the plaintiff's claim for a common intention constructive trust or resulting trust and the defendant's counterclaim, finding insufficient evidence to support either.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Claims and Counterclaim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Beneficial ownership dispute over a BMW M6. The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim for constructive or resulting trust and the defendant's counterclaim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Er Kok Yong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Cheng Cheng (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Neutral | |
| Tan San San (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Neutral | |
| Keh Lay Hong (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement with Spencer to purchase a BMW M6 in Spencer's name, held on trust for the Plaintiff.
- Plaintiff claimed sole beneficial ownership and responsibility for payments, maintenance, and usage of the vehicle.
- Spencer purchased the vehicle in February 2014 for S$566,000, paying a deposit and part payment via credit card.
- Plaintiff claimed to have paid Spencer S$266,000 in cash and made monthly loan repayments to BMW Financial Services.
- Plaintiff alleged an oral agreement with Lawrence for Lawrence to take over beneficial ownership from September 2015 to January 2017.
- Plaintiff claimed beneficial ownership reverted to him in January 2017 after another oral agreement with Lawrence.
- Defendants denied any oral agreement and Plaintiff's claims of making all financial contributions.
5. Formal Citations
- Er Kok Yong v Tan Cheng Cheng (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) and others, Suit No 438 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 58
- Er Kok Yong and another v Tan Cheng Cheng (as co-administratrix of the estate of Spencer Tuppani, deceased) and others, , [2023] SGHC 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Spencer Tuppani died | |
| Original Statement of Claim filed | |
| Defendants’ counterclaim filed | |
| Amendments made to statement of claim | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Grounds of decision in S 554 issued | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Common Intention Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff was unable to adduce sufficient and compelling evidence of the pleaded common intention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Oral agreement
- Beneficial ownership
- Detrimental reliance
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff could not discharge the burden of proving he had made all financial contributions for the Vehicle.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Financial contributions
- Beneficial interest
- Presumption of resulting trust
- Limitation Act
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendants were unable to rely on either the possession limb or the conversion limb of s 22(1)(b) of the Limitation Act; that s 6(2) therefore applied to monies paid by Spencer in 2014; and that the Defendants’ counterclaim in respect of the five 2014 payments was time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Time-barred claims
- Possession of monies
- Conversion of monies
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration of Beneficial Ownership
- Order for Account
- Repayment of Monies
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Oral Agreement
- Claim for Beneficial Ownership
- Presumed Resulting Trust
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Trust Litigation
11. Industries
- Automotive
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a common intention constructive trust arises where there is a clear common intention among parties as to how their beneficial interests are to be held. |
| Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun | Unknown | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1048 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements of establishing a common intention constructive trust, including sufficient and compelling evidence of the express or inferred common intention. |
| Ong Chai Soon v Ong Chai Koon and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the requirement of detrimental reliance on the common intention to establish a common intention constructive trust. |
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | Unknown | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | England | Cited for the two scenarios in which a resulting trust typically arises, as outlined by Lord Browne-Wilkinson. |
| Lim Chen Yeow Kelvin v Goh Chin Peng | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 783 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should discern a clear intention on the part of the transferor before applying any presumption of a resulting trust. |
| Ng So Hang v Wong Sang Woo | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 162 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the common intention constructive trust is usually the foremost claim, with the resulting trust as the backstop claim. |
| Yeow Jen Ai Susan v Ravindaranath Kalyana Ramasamy | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 94 | Singapore | Cited regarding the analysis of common intention constructive trust and resulting trust claims. |
| Ong Chai Koon and others v Ong Chai Soon | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 76 | Singapore | Cited regarding the analysis of common intention constructive trust and resulting trust claims. |
| Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and others v Lim Choon Thye and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 343 | Singapore | Cited for guidance in considering the application of s 116, illustration (g) of the Evidence Act 1893 regarding adverse inference. |
| Lim Ah Leh v Heng Fook Lin | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 156 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Limitation Act applies to resulting trusts and a beneficiary’s action for an account is caught by s 6(2) of the Limitation Act. |
| Tan Chin Hoon and others v Tan Choo Suan and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1150 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Limitation Act applies to resulting trusts. |
| Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 173 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 6(2) of the Limitation Act applies to a beneficiary’s action against a trustee for an account. |
| In re Oatway | Unknown | Yes | [1903] 2 Ch. 356 | England | Cited regarding the principle that mixing of funds per se does not preclude a resulting trust from arising. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presumption of a resulting trust does not operate where there is direct evidence revealing the intention of parties. |
| Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 654 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the onus is on the plaintiff claiming the benefit of the resulting trust to adduce enough evidence of the specific fiduciary duties applicable to the defendant resulting trustee. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited regarding the evidential burden of proof. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act 1959 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Common intention constructive trust
- Resulting trust
- Beneficial ownership
- Oral agreement
- Financial contributions
- Vehicle loan
- Limitation Act
- Time-barred
- Presumption of advancement
- Fiduciary duties
15.2 Keywords
- BMW M6
- constructive trust
- resulting trust
- beneficial ownership
- oral agreement
- financial contributions
- Singapore
- High Court
- Limitation Act
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Constructive Trust | 80 |
| Resulting Trust | 80 |
| Trust Law | 75 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Trust Law
- Property Law
- Equity
- Civil Litigation