Ho Woon Chun (administratrix of the estate of Ho Fook Tuck, deceased) v Wang Kai Qing [2023] SGHC 115

Outcome: Application dismissed.

Facts

1            Claimant is the Deceased’s sister and administratrix of the Estate. Claimant sought a declaration that Defendant held the Flat as trustee for and on behalf of the Estate.

Court’s Decision:

2            The court’s inquiry into the “actual intentions and desires” of the transferor of the property in issue is a fact-specific one: the totality of the evidence – i.e., direct evidence from the transferor if it is available, contemporaneous documentary evidence, and circumstantial evidence – has to be weighed in the balance.: at [58].

3            In taking the necessary steps to effect the transfer of the Flat to the Defendant and himself as joint tenants, the Deceased had the benefit of explanation from the hDB officers regarding the procedure for and the nature of the transfer. There was no reason why the Deceased should even have taken the initiative to add Defendant as a joint tenant if his intention all along was to remain the sole beneficial owner of the Flat.: at [60] and [65].

4            There was a close and intimate relationship between Defendant and the Deceased. The Deceased showed genuine love and affection for Defendant and took pains to take care of and to provide for her – even after the registration of their divorce in China. This is borne out by objective evidence.: at [68].

5            As the court was satisfied that the evidence showed a clear intention on the Deceased’s part to gift the Defendant with a beneficial interest in the Flat by adding her as a joint tenant, it was not necessary to resort to presumptions.: at [81].

6            The common intention constructive trust provides for the beneficial interests of parties to be assessed in accordance with their common intention (whether express or inferred). This is based on all the conduct of the parties, rather than simply adopting a purely arithmetic approach with respect to contributions to purchase price. The common intention constructive trust arises by operation of law from the date of the circumstances giving rise to it. Once a common intention between the parties has been made out, there must be detrimental reliance on the party relying on the trust.: at [84].

7            The common intention constructive trust arises at the time of the transfer. In this case, since the transfer took place as between the Deceased and the Defendant, the relevant “common intention” must have been one that existed between the Deceased and the Defendant at the time of the transfer.: at [90].


The full text of the decision can be found here. 

This summary is provided to assist the public to have a better understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.