Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth and others v Ng Choong Keong Steven

Three sisters, Ng Lai Kuen Priscilla Elizabeth, Ng Lai Fong Charmaine and Ng Lai Har, together with their parents' estates, sued their younger brother Ng Choong Keong Steven in Suit No 169 of 2020 over a commercial property in Veerasamy Road. Their father had run a hardware business there under one-year HDB leases. In 1995 the HDB offered him an 89-year lease of the property at a discounted price under its Sale of Tenanted Shops Scheme, and in November 1995 it was conveyed to the father and the defendant as joint tenants. The defendant was also a joint borrower on the bank loan, but it was undisputed that the father paid the whole purchase price, repaid the loan, bore all outgoings and was the sole beneficial owner during his lifetime.

The father died in December 2016, and the mother, who took over the business, died in August 2017, leaving her residue equally to the four children. The defendant then took the position that, as surviving joint tenant, he was sole owner, and in November 2019 said he intended to sell. The sisters lodged a caveat and sued, claiming a presumed resulting trust for the father or, alternatively, a constructive trust. The defendant said the father intended him to take by survivorship, relied on the presumption of advancement, and counterclaimed for a declaration of sole ownership and damages for the caveat.

1. Whether the defendant rebutted the presumed resulting trust by evidence that the father intended to benefit him with the right of survivorship
2. Whether a right of survivorship can be the subject of a gift or trust, and whether the extended presumption of advancement applies between parent and child
3. Whether any presumption of advancement was rebutted on the facts
4. Whether costs should be reduced because the constructive trust claims failed

Applying the framework in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048, a resulting trust was presumed because the defendant contributed nothing. The court rejected the five facts said to show the father's intention. The father's reported words that they would "join name" said nothing about survivorship, and claims of further words were an afterthought. Even if the solicitors explained joint tenancy, the father was more likely indifferent, intending the property as permanent rent-free premises for the business and support for the mother, and naming the defendant secured better loan terms. The defendant's own risk as borrower was irrelevant, and the father's later inaction and paying the bank to hold the title deed were equivocal.

The court held that a right of survivorship is not property and cannot be the subject of a gift or trust on its own; splitting interests in that way required an express trust. The obiter extension of the presumption of advancement in Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 was confined to spouses and did not fit the defendant's case, since he conceded the father could sell, mortgage or remove him at will.

In any event, the presumption arose only weakly: the father had four children, the defendant was financially independent, and the family was in straitened circumstances. The evidence showed the parents treated their children equally, as reflected in the mother's will, and the defendant was not shown to be the favoured child. No common intention or detrimental reliance supported a constructive trust.

On costs, the failed constructive trust claims were not raised unreasonably and did not significantly lengthen proceedings, so no deduction was made.

Vinodh Coomaraswamy J found for the plaintiffs, declaring that the defendant holds the beneficial interest in the property on trust in equal shares for the three sisters and himself, and making orders to allow the plaintiffs to buy his 25% interest. The counterclaim was dismissed, and the defendant was ordered to pay costs fixed at $149,000 excluding disbursements.