Cheng Tim Jin v Chan Kam Piew

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 124 consider?

The judgment refers to Trustees Act (Cap 337). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGDC 124 District Court 7 April 2026 DC/OC 563/2024 28 min read

8 cases cited (6 SG, 2 foreign)

Outcome

Claim dismissed

I accordingly dismiss the claim.

Source: [2026] SGDC 124, District Court, decided 7 April 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	District Court
Decided	7 April 2026
Judge	Chiah Kok Khun
Charges / claim	Trusts
Outcome	Claim dismissed
Counsel	Advocatus Law LLP, Lumiere Law LLP, Ang Wee Tiong, Ganga Avadiar, Katie Lee Shih Ying, Lim Yi Zheng

Source: [2026] SGDC 124, District Court, decided 7 April 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Trusts — Trustees — Fiduciary relationship — Trustee holding shares in company on trust for beneficiary — Trustee terminating sale of shares in company to third party — Whether trustee’s actions breach of trust — Whether breach of fiduciary duties — Whether trustee’s actions caused beneficiary to lose chance to sell shares to third party –– Whether chance lost real or substantial –– Whether chance lost speculative –– Section 3A Trustees Act 1967

Practice Areas

Trusts

Judges (1)

Chiah Kok Khun Delivered

Counsel (6)

Advocatus Law LLP Firm Lumiere Law LLP Firm Ang Wee Tiong Counsel Plaintiff Ganga Avadiar Counsel Defendant Katie Lee Shih Ying Counsel Plaintiff Lim Yi Zheng Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Chan Kam Piew Defendant Cheng Tim Jin Plaintiff

Case Significance

Cheng Tim Jin v Chan Kam Piew [2026] SGDC 124, decided on 7 April 2026 by District Judge Chiah Kok Khun, involved a breach of trust claim brought by Cheng Tim Jin, an advocate and solicitor and director of Wilberforce TJC Law Corporation, against Chan Kam Piew, a former director of Alvamar Capital Pte Ltd. Under a share purchase agreement dated 7 August 2017, Chan agreed to sell 11,100 ACPL shares (including 5,550 Trust Shares held on trust for Cheng) to Moinul Alam, a Bangladeshi businessman, for S$660,000. Cheng alleged that Chan subsequently terminated the sale, causing Cheng to lose a real and substantial chance to sell his shares to Moinul. The court considered whether Chan's termination constituted a breach of trust and fiduciary duty under the Trustees Act 1967 (s 3A), and whether any chance lost was real or speculative.

[2026] SGDC 124 explained

Cheng Tim Jin v Chan Kam Piew ([2026] SGDC 124) is a Singapore judgment decided by the District Court on 7 April 2026. It is categorised under Trusts. 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 [2026] SGDC 124 about?

Cheng Tim Jin v Chan Kam Piew ([2026] SGDC 124) is a District Court decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Trusts — Trustees — Fiduciary relationship — Trustee holding shares in company on trust for beneficiary — Trustee terminating sale of shares in company to third party — Whether trustee’s actions breach of trust — Whether breach of fiduciary duties — Whether trustee’s actions caused beneficiary to lose chance to sell shares to third party –– Whether chance lost real or substantial –– Whether chance lost speculative –– Section 3A Trustees Act 1967”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGDC 124 consider?

The judgment refers to Trustees Act (Cap 337). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The claimant, a lawyer and director of Wilberforce TJC Law Corporation, sued his trustee for breach of trust and fiduciary duty after the defendant terminated a 2017 share sale agreement worth $660,000 covering 11,100 shares in Alvamar Capital Pte Ltd, half of which the defendant held on trust for the claimant. The key issue was whether the termination of the SPA deprived the claimant of a real and substantial chance to sell his shares. The District Court dismissed the claim, finding that the defendant had acted in accordance with his fiduciary duties and that any chance of sale lost by the claimant was speculative rather than real or substantial.

What trust and fiduciary duty issues arose when a trustee terminated a share sale in Cheng Tim Jin v Chan Kam Piew [2026] SGDC 124?

District Judge Chiah Kok Khun examined whether Chan Kam Piew breached his duties as trustee by terminating the 2017 sale of 11,100 Alvamar Capital shares to Moinul Alam for S$660,000, and whether Cheng Tim Jin thereby lost a real and substantial rather than speculative chance to sell his shares.