JENNY PRAWESTI v SAUW TJIAUW KOE

Facts

Jenny Prawesti sued her mother, Sauw Tjiauw Koe, in Suit No 375 of 2022 over 26 Singapore properties bought between 2002 and 2012 in the names of Jenny, Mdm Koe and/or Jenny's younger brother Ronny, mostly as tenants-in-common with Jenny registered as holding 1%. The family moved from Indonesia in or about 1986, and Mdm Koe's husband purportedly gave her a large allowance. The first property, at Centrepoint, was bought in 2002 in Jenny and Mdm Koe's names as joint tenants. Jenny said that when she learned her mother had added her name, Mdm Koe promised they would keep buying properties together as equal owners. Mdm Koe said she was merely borrowing her children's names. Jenny gave Mdm Koe powers of attorney from April 2007, Mdm Koe bought 20 properties that year, and on 15 November 2007 she signed a letter of indemnity in Jenny's favour.

The dispute arose in 2021. Jenny claimed a 50% beneficial interest in all 26 properties under a common intention constructive trust and an account of rent and sale proceeds. Mdm Koe counterclaimed that Jenny held all her registered interests, and her 1% of the shares in ST Travel Pte Ltd, on trust for her, and sought the rent Jenny had collected from the Hawaii Tower property.

Issues

1. Whether the letter of indemnity created an express trust
2. Whether there was an express or inferred common intention as to the beneficial ownership of the properties
3. Whether Jenny held the Centrepoint property and the other 25 properties on trust for Mdm Koe
4. Who beneficially owned the ST Travel shares, and what accounts should be ordered

Holding

The High Court dismissed Jenny's claim and largely allowed Mdm Koe's counterclaim, dismissing it only as to the Centrepoint property and the ST Travel shares. It declared that the parties hold the Centrepoint property as joint tenants in law and equity, that Jenny holds her interests in the other 25 properties on trust for Mdm Koe, and that Jenny owns the ST Travel shares beneficially. It ordered Mdm Koe to pay Jenny S$16,154.32 and S$10,477.28 for two properties, and ordered Jenny to account for the net rent from the Hawaii Tower property. Costs were to be heard separately.

Reasoning

The letter of indemnity was a one-sided undertaking by Mdm Koe that showed no intention by Jenny to create a trust and identified no specific property, so there was no express trust, though it was evidence of the parties' intentions. Neither side proved an express common intention. Jenny first raised the alleged promise about a year and a half into the proceedings, told no one of it, knew of her 1% shares when the properties were bought, and never asked for any proceeds while repeatedly asking her mother for money in 2018 to 2020. Mdm Koe's account also failed: there was no evidence she repaid Jenny's payments for Centrepoint, her solicitor's evidence was unreliable, and her reasons for using Jenny's name were unconvincing.

Centrepoint stood apart. Jenny paid the option fee, CPF money towards the price and S$115,714.50 of CPF money towards the mortgage, the parties' contributions were almost evenly split, and Mdm Koe could not displace the joint tenancy. For the other 25 properties, Mdm Koe paid all initial sums and was understood to be solely responsible for the mortgages, as the letter of indemnity showed, and she had complete control over them. That gave rise to an inferred common intention, and alternatively a resulting trust, in her favour. Jenny's tracing theory and unpleaded claims of other contributions were rejected.

Jenny received the ST Travel shares for her work, Mdm Koe's nominee explanation was not believable, and the presumption of advancement applied in any event. Jenny could not fairly demand an account for Centrepoint, having agreed her mother would keep the rent and pay the costs, but was entitled to be repaid sums taken from her account for two mortgages.

From the judgment