Djony Gunawan v Christina Lesmana

10 May 2024

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Both AD/CA 115/2023 and AD/CA 116/2023 were filed by the appellant, Mr Djony Gunawan (“Mr Gunawan”). The respondent was Ms Christina Lesmana (“Ms Lesmana”).

2 Mr Gunawan and Ms Lesmana were married in Indonesia in 1995. The marriage of 18 years ended in divorce in June 2013. There were three children from the marriage.

3 Mr Gunawan purchased a property, known as the “Seaview Property” in 2007 by exercising the option to purchase in his sole name. Sometime thereafter and before legal completion of the sale, Mr Gunawan consented to adding Ms Lesmana’s name as joint owner to the certificate of title of the property. The certificate of title in evidence showed her to be a joint tenant as early as 24 June 2009.

4 On 28 October 2021, Ms Lesmana applied in HC/OS 1095/2021 (“OS 1095”) for sale in lieu of partition of the Seaview Property, with the sale proceeds to be distributed equally between herself and Mr Gunawan. On 26 October 2022, Mr Gunawan filed HC/OA 713/2022 (“OA 713”) seeking, amongst other things, a declaration that he was the sole beneficial owner of the Seaview Property and for Ms Lesmana’s name as joint owner to be removed from the certificate of title.

5 OS 1095 and OA 713 were consolidated. The Judge ruled in favour of Ms Lesmana on 9 October 2023 and ordered the Seaview Property to be sold in the open market in lieu of partition, with Ms Lesmana to receive as her entitlement 50% of the sale proceeds. The Judge noted that notwithstanding the parties’ serious dispute over the material facts, the earlier order for the parties’ witnesses to be cross-examined on the disputed facts was revoked following Mr Gunawan’s decision to proceed on a documents-only hearing. According to the Judge, the change meant that he was left to determine the consolidated applications on the available evidence gathered from the undisputed facts. The Judge accepted that Ms Lesmana had not paid anything for her interest as joint tenant of the property. The Judge accepted that the presumption of advancement raised by Ms Lesmana operated in a spousal relationship and that the presumption had not been rebutted by Mr Gunawan. In the result, the legal title reflected the beneficial interest of the parties involved and Mr Gunawan was presumed to have intended to gift a legal and beneficial half share of the Seaview Property to Ms Lesmana.

6 Mr Gunawan appealed, arguing that he remained the sole beneficial owner of the Seaview Property as there was evidence that he had no intention to benefit Ms Lesmana at the time her name was added as a joint tenant. In addition, Mr Gunawan argued that he had rebutted the presumption of advancement raised by Ms Lesmana because at the time Ms Lesmana’s name was added as a joint tenant of the Seaview Property in 2009, the parties’ relationship had broken down to such an extent that Mr Gunawan could not have intended to benefit Ms Lesmana. Thus, according to Mr Gunawan, Ms Lesmana as joint tenant held her half share of the beneficial interest on a resulting trust.

7 Despite the parties’ reliance on the framework set out in Chan Yuen Lan at [160], the Chan Yuen Lan framework was in truth not particularly relevant to this case as, unlike Chan Yuen Lan, the transfer of the property from one party to another in the present case occurred later in time after the point of purchase. There was no doubt that Chan Yuen Lan and Lau Siew Kim, both decisions of the Court of Appeal, were consistent with each other to the extent that they both considered and applied well-established principles relating to the law on resulting trusts. However, the precise framework set down in Chan Yuen Lan at [160] need not be resorted to where the court was not required to determine the proportion of the contributors’ interests that was to be derived from the types of contributions and the amounts paid at the time of acquisition of the property. The resulting trust analysis could still apply without adopting the Chan Yuen Lan framework to ascertain the disputed beneficial interests of the registered joint tenants in the property: at [19]–[20].

8 Mr Gunawan’s claim that there was direct evidence that purportedly proved his actual intention not to benefit Ms Lesmana at the time Ms Lesmana’s name was added as a joint tenant of the Seaview Property in June 2009 ran into difficulty because of his strategic mistake in resiling from his original position that there would be cross-examination: at [21]–[22].

9 Mr Gunawan succeeded in raising the presumption of resulting trust as there was a voluntary transfer of property to Ms Lesmana without Ms Lesmana providing any consideration for the transfer: at [36].

10 The burden was on Ms Lesmana to establish that a gift was intended by Mr Gunawan’s transfer of a legal interest in the Seaview Property to her or to invoke the presumption of advancement to displace the presumption of resulting trust: at [26].

11 The Judge was correct in deciding in favour of Ms Lesmana based on the presumption of advancement, and in finding that the presumption of advancement was not rebutted by Mr Gunawan: at [35], [41] and [51].

12 The presumption of advancement operated strongly having regard to the objective evidence favouring Ms Lesmana. Ms Lesmana was a homemaker throughout the marriage, and she was financially dependent on her husband. While Mr Gunawan’s counsel had pointed to evidence suggesting that Ms Lesmana (and the couple’s children) was subjected to physical violence at various times during the marriage, this could not unequivocally rebut the presumption of advancement as a violent, mercurial spouse who was prone to fits of anger might still love his family and could still have intended to make gifts to them. There was evidence that Mr Gunawan, at the time he added her name as a joint tenant of the Seaview Property, loved Ms Lesmana and made the transfer to secure her financial well-being, and there was evidence to suggest that the parties’ relationship broke down only in 2012 (ie, three years after Ms Lesmana was made a joint tenant of the Seaview Property): at [40].

13  Mr Gunawan had not adduced evidence to successfully rebut the presumption of advancement. The appeals were dismissed: at [41] and [51].