Lin Tze Kin (Suing as Co-Executor of the Estate of Tan Ah Kar, Deceased) and another v Lim Sze Eng and another

Madam Tan Ah Kar (TAK) died on 3 August 2023. Her will of 23 February 2012 left "my 50% share" of the family home to her youngest son, Mr Lin Tze Kin (C1), and his two sons. C1 and his wife, Mdm Tan Yen Lin, sued as executors in Originating Claim No 672 of 2024 against TAK's eldest son, Mr Lim Sze Eng (D1), and his wife, Mdm Tan Lay Hoon (D2). TAK had become sole owner of the home when her husband died in 1992, and by a transfer dated 3 November 2008 she gave half to the defendants as a gift, keeping the other half as tenant-in-common. From 2007 D1 acquired an adjoining lot and enlarged the house, where TAK lived with the defendants' family.

The defendants said that D1 and D2 had bought the home from TAK in 1993 for $570,000 by paying off her overdraft, so her half was held on trust for them; alternatively they sought credit for about $1.2m spent on redevelopment. D1 also counterclaimed about $1.5m that he said he had deposited with TAK for safekeeping from 1988. Separately, in 2001 two units referred to as the FEP Units were bought in the names of TAK, D1 and D2 as tenants-in-common, with TAK contributing $150,000; D1 sold them in 2007 for $3,780,000 and kept the proceeds. The executors claimed TAK's share.

1. Whether the defendants bought the home from TAK so that her half-share was held on trust for them.
2. Whether D1 should receive an allowance for improvements, and how it should be measured.
3. Whether TAK held about $1.5m on trust for D1.
4. What beneficial interest TAK had in the FEP Units, and whether that claim was time-barred or defeated by laches.

The registered transfer and the will showed TAK kept her half, so the defendants had to prove the alleged purchase. They had no document recording it, and bank slips did not trace the payments to them. The court found D1 had altered a slip that first read "Tat Leong Petroleum" to show his own account, and that the story of selling Taiwan properties to raise the money was fabricated. The court found instead that D1 procured the 2008 gift while planning the redevelopment, and recordings of TAK spoke of giving D1 half to honour her husband's wishes, not of a sale.

On improvements, equitable accounting applied. D1 had acquired the adjoining lot and paid for the later works, but not proved he paid for 1998 works, and a structural plans application was no proof of spending. His proven outlay was $611,475.34, below the $750,000 value increase. Preferring the approach in Re Pavlou [1993] 1 WLR 1046, the court allowed the lower of half the outlay or half the increase.

The $1.5m counterclaim failed. D1's account shifted on when deposits began and on the total; his own schedules came to far less and included small sums such as bank interest. The pattern of cheques, often several on one date or tagged to particular months, fitted the executors' evidence that he gave TAK money for his household's expenses. He kept no records and raised the claim only after the FEP claim was made.

On the FEP Units, TAK's $150,000 was her own money. With no evidence of a shared intention that she take a one-third share, her interest was proportionate to her contribution, 10.67%. D1 managed the units and kept the proceeds, so he was a fiduciary and a Class 1 constructive trustee; s 22(1) of the Limitation Act therefore applied and the claim was not time-barred. Laches did not apply: D1's retention was dishonest, TAK lived with him and had confronted him over the proceeds, the executors acted within about a year, and D1 showed no prejudice.

The High Court allowed the claim in part and dismissed D1's counterclaim. TAK's half-share was hers beneficially, and the home was ordered to be sold in the open market at no less than market value, with the defendants given first option to buy that half-share. Net proceeds were to be divided equally, with the defendants reimbursed from the claimants' share by the lower of $305,737.67 or half the value increase from the 2007 to 2021 works. TAK was held to have a 10.67% interest in the FEP Units on a presumed resulting trust, and D1 was ordered to pay that share of the net sale proceeds and account for rent from July 2004 and any reinvestment profits.