British and Malayan Trustees Ltd v Ameen Ali Salim Talib: Trust Income Recoupment & Distribution

In British and Malayan Trustees Limited v Ameen Ali Salim Talib and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the Trustees for relief under O 80 r 2 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) regarding trusts established under an Indenture of Settlement dated 10 September 1921. The Trustees sought directions on recouping over-payments made to some beneficiaries due to an erroneous interpretation of the trust terms and redistributing those funds to underpaid beneficiaries. The court ruled that the Trustees had the right to recoup the overpayments and sanctioned the terms of the Trustees’ plan.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Trustees have the right to recoup the overpayments and sanctioning the terms of the Trustees’ plan.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case regarding the recoupment of over-payments and redistribution of trust income to underpaid beneficiaries. The court ruled in favor of the trustees' right to recoup.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
British and Malayan Trustees LtdApplicantCorporationApplication AllowedWon
Ameen Ali Salim TalibRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Helmi bin Ali bin TalibRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Murtada Ali Salem TalibRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Saadaldeen Ali Salim TalibRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Shawqi Ali Salem TalebRespondentIndividualApplication OpposedLost
Lutfi Salim bin TalibRespondentIndividualApplication SupportedNeutral
Zayed bin Abdul Aziz TalibRespondentIndividualApplication SupportedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Hri Kumar NairJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Su Min RebeccaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Mak Wei MunnAllen & Gledhill LLP
Xu Jiaxiong DarylAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lem Jit Min AndyHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Lin Shuang JuHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Lin ShuminDrew & Napier LLC
Cheng Si Yuan ShaunDrew & Napier LLC
Song YihangDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. The Trustees made over- and under-payments to beneficiaries due to an erroneous interpretation of the Trust.
  2. The dispute concerned whether a deceased beneficiary's share should be divided amongst all surviving beneficiaries or only those from the same branch.
  3. Hoong J decided in favor of the Branch Interpretation in OC 163.
  4. The Trustees applied for directions on the exercise of its right of recoupment against the overpaid beneficiaries.
  5. The Trustees proposed a plan to recover the overpaid distributions for the period 21 November 2001–1 May 2014.
  6. Some beneficiaries opposed the application, arguing there should be no recoupment.
  7. Mr Lutfi and Mr Zayed argued that the Trustees should exercise its right of recoupment for the period 21 November 2001–1 May 2014.

5. Formal Citations

  1. British and Malayan Trustees Ltd v Ameen Ali Salim Talib and others, Originating Summons No 288 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 203
  2. British and Malayan Trustees Limited v Ameen Ali Salim Talib and others, , [2023] 4 SLR 630
  3. British and Malayan Trustees Limited v Lutfi Salim bin Talib and others, , [2019] SGHC 270

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Indenture of Settlement established
Supplemental Indenture executed
Trustees appointed by Order of Court
Mr. Salem bin Ahmad bin Salamah Talib passed away
Mdm Noor bte Ali bin Sallim bin Talib passed away
Mr Salleh bin Amir Talib passed away
Mr Shafeeq bin Salim Talib passed away
Hoong J decided in favour of the Branch Interpretation
Hoong J held that the Consequential Issue Application was outside the scope of OC 163
Affidavit of Ngiam Hai Peng dated
Order of Court appointing representatives of beneficiaries
Affidavit of Ameen Ali Salim Talib dated
Affidavit of Zayed bin Abdul Aziz Talib dated
Mr Lutfi and Mr Zayed commenced an action in HC/OC 230/2023
Settlement Agreement entered into
OC 230 was discontinued
Affidavit of Ngiam Hai Peng dated
Affidavit of Helmi bin Ali bin Talib dated
Applicant’s Written Submissions dated
1st to 5th Respondents’ Written Submissions dated
6th and 7th Respondents’ Written Submissions dated
Hearing date
Court issued brief written grounds
Detailed grounds of decision issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Right of recoupment
    • Outcome: The court held that the Trustees had the right to recoup the overpayments.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1916] 2 Ch 417
      • [2018] EWHC 785 (Ch)
      • [2012] SASC 28
  2. Acquiescence
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no acquiescence on the part of the beneficiaries.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] SGHC 30
      • [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530
      • [2014] 3 SLR 663
  3. Estoppel by convention
    • Outcome: The court held that the Trustees were not estopped by convention from retrospectively challenging the prior distributions and recouping any over-payments.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2024] SGHC 174
      • [2020] 5 SLR 514
      • [2020] 2 SLR 200
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474
  4. Appropriateness of Proposed Plan
    • Outcome: The court found that the terms of the Proposed Plan were reasonable and appropriate to be implemented.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] FCA 1521
      • [2011] EWHC 485

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Directions on the exercise of the right of recoupment
  2. Approval of the Proposed Plan

9. Cause of Actions

  • Administration action

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Equitable Recoupment

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
British and Malayan Trustees Limited v Ameen Ali Salim Talib and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 630SingaporeCited for setting out the background to the proceedings.
British and Malayan Trustees Limited v Lutfi Salim bin Talib and othersHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 270SingaporeCited for the court's decision in favour of the Branch Interpretation.
Australian Prudential Regulation Authority v KelaherFederal Court of AustraliaYes[2019] FCA 1521AustraliaCited for the proposition that recoupment plans can offer a practical and sensible way to cause the least inconvenience to the beneficiaries whilst ensuring all were treated fairly and equitably.
Public Trustee v CooperUnknownYes[2001] WTLR 901England and WalesCited for the four categories in which a court can be involved in the administration of a trust.
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherHigh CourtYes[2012] 1 SLR 211SingaporeCited for affirming the four categories in Cooper and explaining that the court does not supervise the day-to-day exercise of discretion by the trustees.
Rep of Otto Poon TrustJersey Court of AppealYes[2015] JCA 109JerseyCited for explaining that a 'momentous' decision is a decision of real importance for the trust.
Hawksford Jersey Ltd v A and othersJersey Royal CourtYes[2018] JRC 171JerseyCited for the proposition that contention among the beneficiaries may turn a decision which would otherwise be taken by the trustee without recourse to the court into a 'momentous' one for which it would be reasonable to seek the courts approval.
ADP and others v ADT and othersHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 904SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court cannot be asked to make decisions for the Trustees even if the Trustees are faced with conflicting demands by the beneficiaries of the Trust.
In re Musgrave, Machell v ParryChancery DivisionYes[1916] 2 Ch 417England and WalesProvides a clear example of the operation of recoupment in circumstances where an over-payment was made.
Burgess and others v BIC UK LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2018] EWHC 785 (Ch)England and WalesCited for holding that in a case of over-payment of sums out of a trust, the trustee would, in principle, have the right and duty to recoup in order to recover any sums overpaid.
Blue Sky Private Equity Limited v Crawford Giles Pty Ltd & OrsSupreme Court of South AustraliaYes[2012] SASC 28AustraliaCited for the principle that a trustee may recover an over-payment out of any interest the beneficiary still has under the trust, or out of future payments of income due to that beneficiary.
In re Diplock, Diplock v Wintle (and associated actions)Court of AppealYes[1948] 1 Ch 465England and WalesCited for the proposition that an underpaid beneficiary’s right of recoupment as against an overpaid beneficiary only arises after exhausting his remedy against the executor who made the wrong payment.
Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] SGHC 30SingaporeCited for explaining the scope of the equitable defence of acquiescence and the requirements for it to operate.
Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 530SingaporeCited for the definition of acquiescence.
Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 3 SLR 663SingaporeCited for the two situations in which acquiescence can be established.
Turms Advisors APAC Pte Ltd v Steppe Gold LtdHigh CourtYes[2024] SGHC 174SingaporeCited for the doctrine of estoppel, and its requirements.
Day, Ashley Francis v Yeo Chin Huat AnthonyCourt of AppealYes[2020] 5 SLR 514SingaporeCited for the doctrine of estoppel by convention operates to hold parties to a certain agreed interpretation of the contract.
Independent State of Papua New Guinea v PNG Sustainable Development Program LtdCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 200SingaporeCited for the requirements of estoppel by convention.
Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 474SingaporeCited for the requirements of estoppel by convention.
In re Robinson, Mclaren v Public TrusteeUnknownYes[1911] 1 Ch 502England and WalesCited for the proposition that limitation is no bar to the right of recoupment, which is a matter of adjustment of accounts by the trustee.
Harris v Harris (No. 2)Rolls CourtYes(1861) 29 Beav 110England and WalesCited for the proposition that limitation is no bar to the right of recoupment, which is a matter of adjustment of accounts by the trustee.
In re Horne, Wilson v Cox SinclairUnknownYes[1905] 1 Ch 76England and WalesCited for the duty of the Trustees to properly administer the Trust, including taking any reasonable steps to address any erroneous payments such as to exercise the power of recoupment.
Capita ATL Pension Trustees Ltd and another v Gellately and othersEngland and Wales High CourtYes[2011] EWHC 485England and WalesCited for the trustee should consider, inter alia, (a) the amount to be gained for the trust fund by way of recoupment; as compared with (b) the costs of exercising that power, for example the costs associated with seeking the court’s advice, and/or of providing disclosure to the affected beneficiaries and engaging with any potential disputes; and (c) the circumstances of individual beneficiaries liable to recoupment, including their financial and other circumstances, such as the hardship or distress that might be caused by recoupment

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 80 r 2 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trust
  • Trustees
  • Beneficiaries
  • Trust Income
  • Recoupment
  • Over-payment
  • Under-payment
  • Branch Interpretation
  • Pari Passu Interpretation
  • Proposed Plan

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • trustees
  • recoupment
  • beneficiaries
  • Singapore
  • court
  • judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Trusts and Estates95
Estate Administration70
Fiduciary Duties60

16. Subjects

  • Trust Law
  • Trust Administration
  • Equitable Recoupment