CHENG AO v YONG NJO SIONG

[2023] SGHC 22 High Court (General Division) 31 January 2023 HC/S 78/2022 24 min read

4 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	31 January 2023
Judge	Philip Jeyaretnam
Charges / claim	Trusts, Land
Counsel	Infinitus Law Corporation, SC Wong Law Chambers LLC, Ho Shing Chian Juliana, Ng Khai Lee, Phyllis Wong Shi Ting, Wong Soo Chih

Source: [2023] SGHC 22, High Court (General Division), decided 31 January 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Trusts — Express trusts — Constitution Land — Interest in land — Tenancy in common Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts

Practice Areas

Trusts Land

Judges (1)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered

Counsel (6)

Infinitus Law Corporation Firm SC Wong Law Chambers LLC Firm Ho Shing Chian Juliana Counsel Defendant Ng Khai Lee Counsel Plaintiff Phyllis Wong Shi Ting Counsel Plaintiff Wong Soo Chih Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Cheng Ao Plaintiff Yong Njo Siong Defendant

Case Significance

Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong [2023] SGHC 22 was decided in the General Division of the High Court by Philip Jeyaretnam J, with judgment reserved and delivered on 31 January 2023 in Suit No 78 of 2022, which included a counterclaim. The dispute arose after a family patriarch expressed wishes about distributing funds from the sale of a business he had founded in China, including a share for his wife. The central question was whether the son, the plaintiff Cheng Ao, used funds allocated by his father to his mother to purchase a property for her while placing himself on the register as co-owner at law but not in equity, or instead used his own funds to buy the property as his own investment while allowing her to stay as a tenant in common. A further question was whether the mother, the defendant Mdm Yong Njo Siong, could claim the balance of her share not used for the purchase. The catchwords concern express trusts, presumed resulting trusts and tenancy in common.

[2023] SGHC 22 explained

CHENG AO v YONG NJO SIONG ([2023] SGHC 22) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 January 2023. It is categorised under Trusts and Land. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 22 about?

CHENG AO v YONG NJO SIONG ([2023] SGHC 22) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Trusts — Express trusts — Constitution”, “Land — Interest in land — Tenancy in common”, and “Trusts — Resulting trusts — Presumed resulting trusts”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Summary

This dispute concerned whether Cheng Ao held a property, on which he and his mother Mdm Yong Njo Siong were registered as tenants in common, on trust for her using funds his late father had allocated to her, or as his own investment. Mdm Yong counterclaimed for a declaration of sole beneficial ownership and for the balance of her share. The court dismissed Cheng's claim and granted the declaration of sole beneficial ownership, but dismissed the counterclaim for the balance moneys.

What was the central question in Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong [2023] SGHC 22?

Whether the son, Cheng Ao, used funds his father allocated to his mother to buy a property while adding himself as co-owner at law but not equity, or used his own funds as an investment while adding her as a tenant in common.

Which trusts principles did the court consider in Cheng Ao v Yong Njo Siong ([2023] SGHC 22)?

Philip Jeyaretnam J considered express trusts and constitution, presumed resulting trusts, and tenancy in common, in a Suit No 78 of 2022 dispute involving a counterclaim over property bought with funds connected to a family business sold in China.