KHOO PHAIK ENG KATHERINE & Anor v KHOO PHAIK EAN PATRICIA & Anor

Facts

Dr Khoo Boo Kwee, a retired general practitioner, died on 21 January 2021. His will of 10 August 2012 left his residuary estate, including fixed deposits totalling $4,080,000 in a UOB account and the balance of a POSB savings account listed in Schedule A, to his four children in equal shares. In October 2019 he was diagnosed with liver cancer. On 7 November 2019 he added his eldest daughter Patricia and his wife Evelyn as co-account holders of both accounts, each able to operate them alone; the banks' terms provided for survivorship. On 18 November 2019 he made a codicil which, among other things, removed his daughter Joyce as an executrix, directed that $80,000 be taken out of the fixed deposits as a cash gift to Evelyn, and gave Patricia or her family the choice to buy his house.

After his death, Patricia, an executrix, refused to include the two joint accounts in the schedule of assets. At his death the POSB account held $139,410.77 and the UOB fixed deposits stood at $3,930,000. The moneys were later moved into other accounts belonging to Patricia and Evelyn. In Suit No 150 of 2022, Katherine and Joyce sued Patricia and Evelyn for a declaration that the moneys were held on resulting trust for the estate. Patricia and Evelyn counterclaimed, joining the son Teng Jin, for a declaration that they held the moneys legally and beneficially by survivorship. Teng Jin broadly sided with his sisters who sued.

Issues

1. Whether there was clear evidence that Dr Khoo, when converting the accounts on 7 November 2019, intended to keep the beneficial interest or to give it to Patricia and Evelyn.
2. Whether, failing clear evidence, a presumption of resulting trust arose in favour of the estate.
3. Whether any presumption of advancement in favour of the wife and eldest daughter rebutted a resulting trust.

Holding

The High Court allowed the plaintiffs' claim in part and dismissed the counterclaim. It declared that Patricia and Evelyn hold the balance of the joint accounts at the date of death on trust for the estate and the beneficiaries under the will and codicil. It ordered them to return the related documents, to account to the estate for those moneys and pay what was found due with interest at the rate the accounts would have earned, and ordered Patricia to sign and file the schedule of assets including the joint accounts. Orders on the other estate moneys, the cash balance and an injunction were refused. Costs were to be heard separately.

Reasoning

On intention, the court treated the presumption of survivorship as displaceable by clear evidence of a contrary intention. Bank terms providing for survivorship are a contract between bank and customers and are not conclusive of ownership, as shown by Low Gim Siah and others v Low Geok Khim and another [2007] 1 SLR(R) 795. Adding the defendants as account holders was by itself neutral: it fitted a gift, but equally fitted a wish for help paying medical bills after a cancer diagnosis. The decisive points were the chronology and the codicil. Executed just 11 days after the conversion, the codicil still called the fixed deposits his own and carved $80,000 out of them for Evelyn, while leaving unchanged the gift of the accounts to all four children. On Patricia's own account of four discussions with her father between 3 and 6 November 2019, he planned every change to his will carefully and in writing, yet never mentioned giving the accounts to the defendants. The court found it incredible that he changed his mind the next day at the bank. Patricia's evidence of his words when handing her the passbook and deposit slips was unclear and carried little weight. Arguments about family relationships were speculative; the clearest evidence of his even-handedness was that he left an equal share to Teng Jin despite their estrangement. A resulting trust therefore arose in favour of the estate.

On the presumptions, because direct evidence revealed his intention, the court held there was no need to resort to them, citing Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 that they are a last resort. Even if they applied, the gratuitous transfer of moneys he alone contributed raised a presumption of resulting trust. Any presumption of advancement was rebutted by the will and codicil, and in Evelyn's case was weak, since the will required her to maintain the house from her own funds and she had her own pension and rental income.

From the judgment