Lee Cheng Ling v Argyle Fund Investments: Resulting & Constructive Trusts Dispute

In Lee Cheng Ling v Argyle Fund Investments Pte Ltd and Lim Chih Li, the Singapore High Court addressed an originating application concerning the beneficial ownership of a property held jointly by Lee Cheng Ling and Lim Chih Li. Argyle Fund Investments, having obtained a summary judgment against Lim Chih Li in separate proceedings, sought to seize Lim's half-share in the property. Lee Cheng Ling filed the application, seeking a declaration that she was the sole beneficial owner and to set aside the enforcement order. The court dismissed the application, finding that the Lims held equal beneficial ownership in the property.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Originating Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning beneficial ownership of property. Court found Lims held equal ownership, dismissing Mdm Lee's claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Valerie TheanJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Lee and Mr Lim purchased a property as joint tenants in 2012 for $5,250,000.
  2. The purchase was financed with a mortgage loan of $4,173,000 from OCBC Bank in both their names.
  3. Argyle obtained summary judgment against Mr Lim for $10,000,000 plus interest and costs in separate proceedings.
  4. Argyle commenced enforcement proceedings to seize Mr Lim’s half-share in the Property.
  5. Mdm Lee filed an objection, claiming she is the 100% beneficial owner of the Property.
  6. Mortgage payments were made out of Mr Lim’s bank accounts, with Mdm Lee regularly reimbursing approximately half of what was paid out.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Cheng Ling v Argyle Fund Investments Pte Ltd and another, Originating Application No 163 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 252

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Purchase of the Property completed
Argyle obtained summary judgment in OC 396
EO 141 served on the Property
Mdm Lee filed a Notice of Objection
Argyle filed a Notice of Dispute to Objection
Sheriff directed Mdm Lee to apply by summons to release the specified debt
Mdm Lee filed this application OA 163
Hearing of the case
Oral reasons given to parties
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership of Property
    • Outcome: The court found that the Lims held equal beneficial ownership in the Property.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Common Intention Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no common intention on the part of the Lims for Mdm Lee to be the sole beneficial owner of the Property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 3 SLR 1048
  3. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that Mdm Lee has not proven that she was the source of the payments made prior to the acquisition of the Property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108
  4. Setting Aside Enforcement Order
    • Outcome: The court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the enforcement order in this suit, stating that the relevant application and analysis ought to be made in OC 396.
    • Category: Procedural
  5. Jurisdiction of the General Division of the High Court
    • Outcome: The court determined that the General Division of the High Court possessed jurisdiction to deal with the enforcement order.
    • Category: Jurisdictional
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 1 SLR 1081
      • [2014] 4 SLR 500
      • [2019] 1 SLR 779

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that Mdm Lee is the sole beneficial owner of the Property
  2. Order to set aside EO 141

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Sole Beneficial Ownership
  • Setting Aside Enforcement Order

10. Practice Areas

  • Trust Law
  • Property Law

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the legal principles regarding common intention constructive trust, specifically the evidence required to establish a common intention and the possibility of such intention arising after acquisition.
Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye TerenceN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 108SingaporeCited for the principle that a resulting trust crystallises at the time the property is acquired and the determination of beneficial interests must be made at the time of purchase.
Li Shengwu v AGCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 1081SingaporeCited for the analysis of the relationship between a court's jurisdiction and power.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdN/AYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited for the principle that filing affidavits without objection constitutes submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu MingN/AYes[2019] 1 SLR 779SingaporeCited for affirming the principle in Zoom Communications that filing affidavits without objection constitutes submission to the jurisdiction of the court.
Khoo Jee Chek v Lim Beng TiongHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 233SingaporeCited for the principle that mortgage payments may only be regarded as a contribution to the purchase price of a property if they are made pursuant to an agreement entered into when the mortgage was taken out.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Joint Tenancy
  • Common Intention Constructive Trust
  • Resulting Trust
  • Enforcement Order
  • Mortgage Payments
  • Corporate Veil

15.2 Keywords

  • trusts
  • property
  • beneficial ownership
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • joint tenancy
  • mortgage
  • enforcement
  • resulting trust
  • constructive trust

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Property Law
  • Civil Procedure