Ng Hong Khiang v Wu Cuiyun

Ng Hong Khiang, the applicant, and Wu Cuiyun, the respondent, met in 2010 when she worked for him at a KTV lounge, and began a romantic relationship in or about 2011 while both were married. In 2014 they agreed to buy a flat at Parkview Apartment in Bukit Batok for S$838,888.00, registered solely in the respondent's name. It was undisputed that the applicant paid the option fee, the option exercise fee, the conveyancing lawyers' fees, stamp duties and a cheque for the cash component, and that the respondent took a S$630,000.00 mortgage loan from Standard Chartered Bank and had been paying the instalments.

In Originating Application No 221 of 2022 the applicant sought an order for sale and 30.24% of the proceeds. He claimed an oral agreement that both would contribute, that the property would be sold at either party's request, and that the proceeds would be split by contribution; he put his contribution at S$273,098.00. The respondent denied any agreement and said his payments were a gift made because of their long relationship. She also said she had given him S$130,000.00 by two cheques, used for the purchase, and had paid S$4,000.00 to the conveyancing firm. The applicant accepted receiving the S$130,000.00 and using it for the purchase, but claimed it was his own money which he had given her at about S$5,000.00 a month for safekeeping.

1. Whether the applicant's payments towards the property were made under an oral agreement to share sale proceeds by contribution or were a gift to the respondent.
2. Whether the S$130,000.00 paid by the respondent to the applicant counted as her contribution or was the return of his money held for safekeeping.
3. Whether the respondent's S$4,000.00 payments to the conveyancing lawyers counted as her contribution.
4. Whether, under the Chan Yuen Lan framework, the respondent held a share of the property on trust for the applicant and in what proportion.

On the agreement, the court found the gift account inconsistent. Under cross-examination the respondent described the money as a dowry that would apply if she married one day, which the court regarded as very different from a gift. Her WeChat messages after the relationship ended did not say his contribution had been a gift, and the telephone call in which she said she had raised it was mentioned for the first time at the hearing, without objective evidence. The applicant had handled the purchase. The court found on a balance of probabilities that the oral agreement existed.

On the S$130,000.00, the court rejected the safekeeping story. His own figures at the hearing did not add up to that sum, and his affidavit gave a different period, a serious material discrepancy. A list prepared on his instructions recorded the sum as coming from the respondent, and the court found it unbelievable that he would hand her cash monthly for a short period rather than bank it. The S$4,000.00 paid to the lawyers was undisputed and related to the purchase. The applicant's contribution was therefore S$139,098.00 against the respondent's S$764,000.00, or 15.4%.

Applying Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048, there was sufficient evidence of contributions, so a resulting trust in proportion to them was presumed. There was no different common intention, no intention to make a gift, and no presumption of advancement, because an extra-marital relationship is not one where it usually arises. The respondent thus held 15.4% on trust for the applicant, consistent with the oral agreement.

The court allowed the application in part. It ordered that the property be sold and that 15.4% of the sale proceeds be paid to the applicant, rather than the 30.24% he sought, and said it would hear the parties on costs.