Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 30 of 1982 |
| Date | 04 March 1985 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1985] SGPC 6
Privy Council
Lord Fraser of Tullybelton
,
Lord Wilberforce
,
Lord Keith of Kinkel
,
Lord Bridge of Harwich
and
Lord Brightman
Privy Council Appeal No 30 of 1982
David Gardam QC (Howard Cashin with him) (Le Brasseur & Bury) for the appellant
John Chadwick QC (M L Kullepetis with him) (Collyer-Bristow) for the respondent.
Cummins, In re [1972] Ch 62 (refd)
Nixon v Nixon [1969] 1 WLR 1676 (refd)
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (refd)
Family Law–Advancement–Presumption–Division of matrimonial assets–Properties and business placed in wife's sole name–Principles for application of presumption of advancement–Whether presumption applicable in local context–Whether presumption of advancement applied–Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Business and matrimonial home placed in wife's sole name–Common intention that wife be sole owner–Whether appropriate case for presumption of advancement to apply–Family Law–Matrimonial assets–Division–Properties placed in wife's sole name–Properties purchased using jointly-owned funds–Whether presumption of advancement applied–Whether husband entitled to claim half-share in properties
This case concerned the beneficial ownership of six houses and a business which were placed in the sole name of the wife at the instance of or with the concurrence of the husband.
The trial judge held that one house that was purchased as the matrimonial home, as well as the business, belonged beneficially to the wife alone. However, he held that the remaining five houses were owned beneficially by the husband and wife in equal shares. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion.
The husband appealed, and sought to reduce the wife's share of the former matrimonial home and the business to a half-share. The wife cross-appealed in relation to the five houses, and sought to increase her half-share to absolute ownership of the whole.
Held, dismissing the appeal and cross-appeal:
(1) The property at 44 One Tree Hill belonged beneficially to the wife alone, as there had been a common intention that the house should be bought for the wife as a matrimonial home. This common intention established the beneficial ownership in the property and it was not appropriate for the presumption of advancement to be applied: at [7].
(2) Regarding the other five properties, the presumption of advancement was not more than a circumstance of evidence which could rebut the presumption of resulting trust (ie a trust resulting to the husband if he was the provider of the money). In a case such as the present, where both spouses had provided the purchase money for the five properties, it was no more than a circumstance of evidence which could rebut the inference that both spouses were equally interested in the five properties: at [15].
(3) The presumption of advancement was not an immutable rule to be applied blindly where there was no direct evidence as to the spouses' common intention. It was a guideline to be followed by the court in an appropriate case when searching for the intention which ought, in the absence of evidence, to be imputed to the parties. It was proper for the trial judge to review the background of the case and decide in appropriate circumstances that the guideline was not one which could sensibly be followed in the case before him: at [16].
(4) On the facts, it would be inappropriate to apply the presumption of advancement such as to vest the entire beneficial interest in the five properties in the wife. Rather, the five properties were owned beneficially by the husband and wife in equal shares. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal, with their knowledge of local conditions, had considered it inappropriate to apply the presumption of advancement. The Privy Council would not disturb the views taken by the trial judge and the Court of Appeal as to what was appropriate to a case concerning the local Chinese community: at [16].
(5) With respect to the business, the trial judge accepted the wife's evidence that there was a common intention that the wife should be its sole owner. There was no reason to question that inference, and arising from the finding, there was no room for the presumption of advancement to apply: at [22].
Judgment reserved.
Lord Brightman(delivering the judgment of the Board):
1 This appeal from the Court of Appeal in Singapore concerns the beneficial ownership of six houses and a business which were placed in the sole name of Foo Stie Wah (“the wife”) at the instance of or with the concurrence of Neo Tai Kim (“the husband”). The trial occupied some six weeks. The trial judge held that one house, purchased as the matrimonial home, and also the business, belonged beneficially to the wife alone, but that the remaining five houses were owned beneficially by the husband and the wife in equal shares. The Court of Appeal reached the same conclusion. The husband...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Low Gim Siah and Others v Low Geok Khim and Another
...13; 36 ER 278 (folld) Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah [1981-1982] SLR (R) 222; [1980-1981] SLR 215, CA (refd) Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah [1985-1986] SLR (R) 48, PC (distd) Pauling's Settlement Trusts, In re [1964] Ch 303 (refd) Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 (distd) Phng Siew Hoon v Phng Siew L......
-
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and Another
...would normally yield the conclusive result. The following extract from the speech of Lord Brightman in Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah [1985] 1 MLJ 397 (PC) at p 399 is a succinct expression of how the modern rule operates in Singapore: In the opinion of their Lordships the presumption of advanc......
-
Lee Leh Hua v Yip Kok Leong
...to be a trustee of that stock, it becomes the property of the cestui que trust without more. 18.Finally, Neo Tai Kim v Foo Stie Wah [1985] 1 MLJ 397 (PC) (on appeal from Singapore), Samson v Samson [1960] 1 All ER 653; [1960 1 WLR 190 and Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 reaffirmed the princ......
-
Mitchell-Davy (Cecillia) v Riley Adolphus Davy
...only where there is no evidence of intention, and one has to be imputed." 11He relied on the advice of the Privy Council in Neo Tai Kim v. Foo Stie Wah (M.W.) (unreported) Privy Council Appeal No. 30/82 dated 4 th March 1985, and said on page 11: "Thus the true nature of the presumption was......