Khoo Jee Chek v Lim Beng Tiong: Equitable Accounting, Co-owned Property, Mortgage Loan Repayments

In Khoo Jee Chek v Lim Beng Tiong, the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the division of net sale proceeds from a co-owned commercial property. The court considered the appellant, Mr. Khoo Jee Chek's arguments that the judge was functus officio and that equitable accounting should account for the respondent, Mr. Lim Beng Tiong's sole occupation of the property. The court allowed the appeal in part, finding that the judge was not functus officio, but that the equitable accounting should consider Mr. Lim's sole occupation and financial gain from the property.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding equitable accounting of sale proceeds from a co-owned property. The court considered mortgage repayments and sole occupation benefits.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Khoo Jee ChekAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Lim Beng TiongRespondentIndividualAppeal Partially UnsuccessfulPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Kannan RameshJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Philip JeyaretnamJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nakoorsha bin Abdul KadirNakoorsha Law Corporation
Michelle Tang Hui MingNakoorsha Law Corporation
Rasveen KaurNakoorsha Law Corporation
Lim Chong Guang CharlesShook Lin & Bok LLP
Edwin Yang YingrongShook Lin & Bok LLP
Abdul Rahul s/o Fuad MohanShook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Khoo and Mr. Lim co-owned a commercial property as joint tenants since September 2017.
  2. The property was purchased for use as a temple and a business selling handicrafts.
  3. The parties obtained a mortgage loan in their joint names to assist in the acquisition of the property.
  4. Mr. Khoo made the first two mortgage payments, and Mr. Lim made all subsequent payments.
  5. The relationship between the parties broke down in October 2018.
  6. Mr. Lim had sole occupation of the property, using it for a temple and a business.
  7. The judge initially determined the beneficial ownership shares as 38.38% for Mr. Khoo and 61.62% for Mr. Lim.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Khoo Jee Chek v Lim Beng Tiong, Civil Appeal No 130 of 2023, [2024] SGHC(A) 21

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Option to purchase the Property obtained
Sale and purchase agreement executed
Manner of holding the Property declared as joint tenants
Deed of assignment of the Property executed
Mr. Khoo made first mortgage payment
Mr. Khoo made second mortgage payment
Mr. Lim made all other monthly mortgage repayments from this month onwards
Keys to the Property collected
Relationship between the parties broke down
Mr Khoo filed Suit HC/S 819/2021 against Mr Lim
Trial in August 2022
Trial in March 2023
Judgment delivered
Further hearing fixed
Judge dealt with how the net sale proceeds of the Property would be divided between the parties in the event of a sale
Judge made further orders in respect of the minimum sale price for the Property and the date by which it was to be sold
Mr Khoo lodged his appeal in AD/CA 130/2023
Oral submissions heard
Completion account filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Equitable Accounting
    • Outcome: The court held that equitable accounting should consider the financial gain derived from sole occupation of the property and disallowed reimbursement for mortgage interest payments.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Accounting for mortgage loan repayments
      • Accounting for sole occupation of property
      • Division of net sale proceeds
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 1222
      • [1977] 3 All ER 1117
      • [2022] EWCA Civ 481
  2. Functus Officio
    • Outcome: The court held that the judge was not functus officio regarding equitable accounting of sale proceeds because the initial judgment only addressed beneficial ownership.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order for Sale of Property
  2. Division of Net Sale Proceeds
  3. Equitable Accounting

9. Cause of Actions

  • Determination of Beneficial Ownership
  • Equitable Accounting

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Religious Organizations
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Khoo Jee Chek v Lim Beng TiongHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 233SingaporeThe primary judgment that determined the beneficial ownership shares of the property, which is the basis for the current appeal regarding equitable accounting.
Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2016] 3 SLR 1222SingaporeCited for the principles of equitable accounting between co-owners, particularly regarding mortgage repayments and the financial position at the time of sale.
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong MunCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited regarding equitable accounting as a mechanism for retrospectively adjusting the parties’ respective shares of the beneficial interest in the property under the resulting trust analysis.
Byford v ButlerHigh Court of JusticeYes[2003] EWHC 1276 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that equitable accounting aims to achieve broad justice between co-owners.
Muschinski v DoddsHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1985) 62 ALR 429AustraliaCited for the principle that parties under a common obligation to pay a debt should bear the burden equally.
Suttill v GrahamCourt of AppealYes[1977] 3 All ER 1117England and WalesCited for the principle of setting off occupation rent against the interest element of mortgage payments in equitable accounting.
Cowcher v CowcherHigh CourtYes[1972] 1 All ER 943England and WalesCited as a hypothetical example of equitable accounting.
Jones (AE) v Jones (FW)Court of AppealYes[1977] 2 All ER 231England and WalesCited for the principle that a co-owner in occupation generally has no liability to pay occupation fee or rent unless there is an agreement or ouster.
Dennis v McDonaldCourt of AppealYes[1981] 2 All ER 632England and WalesCited for the principle that a co-owner in occupation generally has no liability to pay occupation fee or rent unless there is an agreement or ouster.
Davis (as trustee in bankruptcy of Jackson) v JacksonHigh CourtYes[2017] EWHC 698 (Ch)England and WalesCited for the principle that a co-owner in occupation generally has no liability to pay occupation fee or rent unless there is an agreement or ouster.
Ali (as personal representative of Farzand Ali (deceased)) v Khatib (as personal representative of Fateh Bibi (deceased)) and othersCourt of AppealYes[2022] EWCA Civ 481England and WalesCited as an example of when it might be just and equitable to account for an occupation rent where the co-owner in occupation is exploiting the property for his own financial gain.
Leigh and another v DickesonCourt of AppealYes(1884) 15 QBD 60England and WalesCited for the principle that equitable accounting is a mode by which money expended by one tenant in common for repairs can be recovered.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1886Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Equitable Accounting
  • Functus Officio
  • Co-ownership
  • Mortgage Repayments
  • Sole Occupation
  • Beneficial Ownership
  • Resulting Trust
  • Joint Tenancy
  • Net Sale Proceeds

15.2 Keywords

  • equitable accounting
  • co-ownership
  • mortgage
  • property
  • Singapore
  • trust
  • sale proceeds
  • occupation rent

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Equitable Accounting90
Chancery and Equity85
Civil Practice70
Mortgage65
Property Law60
Unjust Enrichment50
Functus Officio40

16. Subjects

  • Property
  • Trusts
  • Civil Procedure
  • Equity