Chee Yin Meh v Ong Kian Guan and others

Mdm Chee Yin Meh is married to Mr Fan Kow Hin, now a bankrupt. Their home at Sunrise Drive was bought in Mr Fan's sole name and transferred to him on 11 August 2011. His trustees in bankruptcy, the respondents, sold it in May 2017. Mdm Chee sued for a declaration that Mr Fan held half the beneficial interest on trust for her and for 50% of the net proceeds; her originating summons became HC/S 350/2019.

It was common ground that on 11 August 2011 Mdm Chee was a foreign person under the Residential Property Act (RPA), the property was residential property, and she had no Minister's approval to acquire an interest in it, although she had applied for citizenship on 10 June 2011 and had earlier obtained approval to co-own a previous home at Sunrise Terrace. According to her, the conveyancing lawyer advised her to apply for citizenship and meanwhile to have Mr Fan hold 50% on trust for her; the lawyer denied giving that advice. Mdm Chee said Mr Fan agreed to hold 50% for her until she became a citizen, which happened on 23 December 2011. She relied on a common intention constructive trust and, alternatively, proprietary estoppel. The trial judge held that even if her account were true, the RPA defeated her claim, and awarded indemnity costs against her. She appealed in AD/CA 113/2022.

1. Whether a foreign person can acquire an interest in residential property through a common intention constructive trust under the RPA
2. Whether the claim could instead succeed by proprietary estoppel
3. Whether the new argument of a trust contingent on citizenship could be advanced on appeal
4. Whether Mdm Chee was barred from equitable relief and whether indemnity costs were justified

Section 25(2) required a foreign person wishing to acquire an interest in residential property to seek the Minister's approval, which Mdm Chee did not do. Section 23(1) forbids a citizen from acquiring such property as a nominee to hold on trust for a foreign person, and forbids the foreign person from appointing such a nominee; section 23(2) makes any such trust void. On her own case both spouses contravened section 23, so the trust was void. Public Prosecutor v Intra Group (Holdings) Co Inc [1999] SGHC 11 concerned constructive trusts imposed by law against the beneficiary's wishes, such as where a foreigner's money was misappropriated, not trusts founded on the parties' common intention. Her pending citizenship application did not take her outside the definition of foreign person. Section 3(1)(c), read with section 3(2)(c), also voided her acquisition; the court noted that the trial judge had cited section 3(1)(b), which concerns trusts for sale and did not apply.

Proprietary estoppel rested on the same agreement, could not be used in defiance of a statute, and would itself be a void acquisition under section 3(1)(c). The contingent trust argument was raised for the first time on appeal, was unpleaded, contradicted her own evidence that the trust arose before she became a citizen, and was unsupported by authority.

The court agreed that on her own case she had acted to circumvent the RPA and so lacked clean hands. Indemnity costs below were justified, and her shifting explanations for the sole-name purchase, which changed once her citizenship status came to light, together with the new argument on appeal, warranted indemnity costs on appeal as well.

The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision that the RPA did not permit a foreign person to acquire an interest in residential property by a common intention constructive trust or proprietary estoppel. It ordered Mdm Chee to pay the trustees costs on an indemnity basis fixed at $50,000 plus disbursements of $8,000.