Vishnumangalam Chandrasekharan Renuka v Yeow Jen Ai Susan
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Woo Bih Li JAD,Quentin Loh JAD,See Kee Oon J |
| Judgment Date | 23 December 2021 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 50 of 2021 |
[2021] SGHC(A) 25
Woo Bih Li JAD, Quentin Loh JAD and See Kee Oon J
Civil Appeal No 50 of 2021
Appellate Division of the High Court
Land — Interest in land — Non-registered owner claiming beneficial interest in immovable property pursuant to alleged oral agreement — Divorcing spouse of registered owner also claiming interest in same property — Whether alleged oral agreement existed — Whether divorcing spouse's claim should be determined in matrimonial proceedings instead
Trusts — Constructive trusts — Non-registered owner claiming common intention constructive trust in respect of immovable property — Whether common intention constructive trust existed
Held, allowing the appeal in part:
(1) In respect of the first main issue, the Judge did not err in declining to rule on W's claim to the Property. The present action was an originating summons brought by Y for a declaration as to her share in the Property. W had intervened in the action in order to challenge Y's claim. Accordingly, Y's claim was the central issue in the action and Y was not concerned in the dispute between H and W in respect of W's interest in the Property. Had the Judge heard evidence and submissions on W's claim, this would have been a distraction from Y's claim, which was the main issue at hand. The Court thus dismissed W's appeal for a decision in respect of her own interest in the Property as that would be addressed in the divorce proceedings: at [18] to [21] and [64].
(2) As to the second main issue, Y had failed to prove the existence of the Alleged OA: at [32].
(3) The Judge had placed undue emphasis on the fact that Y had made monthly transfers of money to H in order to conclude that the Alleged OA existed. However, the fact that Y had made such transfers to H did not necessarily mean that this was done pursuant to the Alleged OA. The key issue was what the purpose of these transfers was. Specifically, the question was whether these transfers were made pursuant to the Alleged OA, as the Judge found, or for some other purpose. The Judge had dismissed W's suggestion that Y's monthly transfers of money to H were simply loans or gifts, considering it to be mere speculation on W's part. However, there was in fact evidence that Y had been lending significant sums of money to H. The Judge had overlooked the close relationship between Y and H as well as their own evidence that she had separately lent him a significant sum of $480,000 without getting anything in return: at [31] to [36].
(4) It was a central feature of the Alleged OA that at the time of the Property's purchase in March 2008, Y and H had both agreed that this would be a joint investment. However, H had previously filed affidavits in the divorce proceedings with W which contradicted this central feature: at [38] to [51].
(5) Furthermore, Y had shifted her evidence about the Alleged OA in a material respect. It was incumbent on Y to explain why she was not included as a legal co-owner of the Property if there was indeed an agreement at inception that the Property's purchase was to be a joint investment between her and H. Initially, Y explained on affidavit that she already had a property of her own, and she stated as a matter of fact that having a second property “would” attract a much higher stamp duty when purchasing the Property. She later changed tack, however, by saying that there was only “speculation” that such stamp duties might be imposed. There was a material difference between the fact that higher stamp duty would be imposed, and mere speculation that it might be. Y and H did not adduce any evidence showing that there was speculation in early 2008 about such higher stamp duty being imposed, and what exactly the speculation was about. In the circumstances, it seemed to the Court that the Judge had erred in accepting Y's explanation about such speculation without more: at [52] to [58].
(6) Since the Court rejected the existence of the Alleged OA, it followed that contrary to the Judge's holding, there was no common intention constructive trust over the Property in favour of Y. W's appeal on the second main issue was therefore allowed. The Judge's decision in favour of Y was set aside and Y's claim to a beneficial interest in the Property was accordingly dismissed: at [61] and [64].
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048 (refd)
This dispute concerned a property at 32 Jalan Rengkam, Singapore 537585 (“the Property”), which was registered in the sole name of the second respondent (“H”). H was married to the appellant (“W”) and the two were undergoing divorce proceedings in FC/D 5697/2018. The first respondent (“Y”) was a female friend of H.
The Property was purchased in March 2008 under H's sole name for $1.7m. In 2019, Y filed an originating summons in the General Division of the High Court to claim an interest in the Property. H was named as the defendant but he supported the claim of Y. Y and H both alleged that at the time of the Property's purchase, there was an oral agreement between them (the “Alleged OA”). The Alleged OA supposedly contained the following terms. Firstly, the Property was to be held in H's sole name to “save costs on stamp duties and higher yearly property tax”. Secondly, when the selling price of the Property rose to $3.5m, the Property was to be sold and the sale proceeds were to be shared between Y and H according to the contributions made by each of them towards the Property's purchase and its other related expenses. Thirdly, Y and H were to contribute to the initial payments for the Property's purchase, and Y was to pay for the Property's mortgage loan repayments and related expenses.
Based on the contributions allegedly made by each of them, Y and H claimed that their respective shares in the Property were 73% and 27% respectively.
W denied the existence of the Alleged OA and the contributions allegedly made by Y pursuant to that agreement. W thus intervened in the action in order to resist Y's claim. W further claimed an interest in the Property on the basis that she had contributed money to its purchase.
The High Court judge (the “Judge”) found that Y had established the existence of the Alleged OA. He thus held that there was a common intention constructive trust in favour of Y to the extent of 73% of the Property. The Judge declined to make any order in respect of W's claim as he was of the view that it was irrelevant to the determination of Y's claim, and that it should be dealt with during the division of matrimonial assets in the divorce proceedings between H and W.
W appealed against the Judge's decision, contesting both the Judge's determination of Y's share in the Property and the Judge's decision not to rule on her claim to the Property.
Before the Appellate Division of the High Court (the “Court”), the two main issues were as follows: (a) first, whether the Judge erred in declining to decide on W's share in the Property; and (b) second, whether the Judge erred in his determination of Y's share in the Property.
Seenivasan Lalita and Lim Ying Ying (Virginia Quek Lalita & Partners) for the appellant;
Jayagobi s/o Jayaram and Gurcharanjit Singh Hundal (Grays LLC) for the respondent;
Second respondent in person.
23 December 2021
Judgment reserved.
Woo Bih Li JAD (delivering the judgment of the court):
1 This is a dispute over a property at 32 Jalan Rengkam, Singapore 537585 (“the Property”). It was bought in March 2008 and is registered in the sole name of the second respondent (“H”). He is married to the appellant (“W”). They are undergoing divorce proceedings in FC/D 5697/2018. The first respondent (“Y”) is a female friend of H.
2 In 2019, Y filed an originating summons in the General Division of the High Court to claim an interest in the Property. H was named as the defendant but he supported the claim of Y. W then intervened in the action in order to resist Y's claim. W also claimed an interest in the Property on the basis that she had contributed money to its purchase.
3 Both H and Y were cross-examined on the affidavits they had filed. After considering the evidence and submissions, the judge below (“the Judge”) issued his judgment on 19 April 2021: see Yeow Jen Ai Susan v Ravindaranath Kalyana Ramasamy (Vishnumangalam Chandrasekharan Renuka, intervener)[2021] SGHC 94 (“the Judgment”). The Judge found that Y was entitled to 73% of the beneficial interest in the Property and H was entitled to 27%. He declined to make any order in respect of W's claim as he was of the view that it was irrelevant to the determination of Y's claim, and that it should be dealt with during the division of matrimonial assets in the divorce proceedings between H and W. W then filed the present appeal against the Judge's decision, contesting both the Judge's determination of Y's share in the Property and the Judge's decision not to rule on her claim to the Property.
4 We set out below some background information from the affidavits of Y and H and from the Judgment.
5 H and W were married in 1992. In 1993, they purchased a flat in Tampines (the “Tampines Flat”) and held it in their joint names. The Tampines Flat was subsequently sold in March 2008 and W claimed that its sale proceeds were used by H to pay for the Property. According to W, since she was entitled to half of the net sale proceeds of the Tampines Flat as a joint owner, she now has a beneficial interest in the Property which H holds on trust for her.
6 Based on H's affidavit, he was previously employed from 1983 to 2006 as a broker in financial institutions, a role in which he traded financial instruments on...
To continue reading
Request your trial