Ex-MP Chiang Hai Ding wins lawsuit filed by former daughter-in-law over S$2.1 million Balestier shophouse
BY
LOUISA TANG
Published September 14, 2023Updated September 14, 2023
WhatsAppTelegramFacebookTwitterEmailLinkedIn
SINGAPORE — Former Member of Parliament Chiang Hai Ding has won a civil lawsuit filed by his former daughter-in-law over the ownership of a heritage shophouse in the Balestier conservation area.
Ms Sabrina Alberta Tan took Dr Chiang and her ex-husband, Mr Chiang Joon Arn, to court earlier this year with claims that she and Mr Chiang were the true beneficial owners of the property at 11 Martaban Road.
ADVERTISEMENT
The couple tied the knot in 2011 before filing for divorce in late 2020. The lawsuit arose from disagreements over whether the Martaban Road shophouse should be included in the pool of matrimonial assets to be divided among them.
Ms Tan contended that the property should be in the pool because Dr Chiang bought it on their behalf. It was purchased in 2009 for S$2.1 million and registered in Dr Chiang’s name.
However, the Chiangs argued there was no agreement for Dr Chiang to hold the property on behalf of the couple.
READ ALSO
Woman wins right to ex-husband’s proceeds from Golden Mile Tower unit, fails in claim over in-laws’ HDB flat
On Thursday (Sept 14), High Court judge Hoo Sheau Peng ruled in favour of father and son, but rejected their claim that the property was an outright gift by Mr Chiang to Dr Chiang.
Justice Hoo made a court declaration that Dr Chiang – who is now 85 – holds 85.71 per cent of the beneficial interest in the property on behalf of his son.
ADVERTISEMENT
Mr Chiang had paid S$520,000 towards the downpayment and took out a S$1.28 million mortgage loan.
Dr Chiang, who contributed S$300,000 towards the property downpayment because his son was short of funds, is the beneficial owner of the remaining 14.29 per cent, the judge ruled.
Dr Chiang, who was the People’s Action Party MP for Ulu Pandan from 1970 to 1984, was also Singapore’s ambassador to more than 10 countries, including the former Soviet Union.
ARGUMENTS BY PLAINTIFF AND DEFENDANTS
In her lawsuit, Ms Tan contended that she and her ex-husband were the true beneficial owners because Dr Chiang was meant to hold it on trust for them, even though it was purchased before their marriage.READ ALSO
Sister of late taxi driver fails in court bid to get share of flat that went to his permanent resident wife
She said that they only used Dr Chiang’s name to purchase the shophouse because they could not do so under their own names.
ADVERTISEMENT
Around 2006, the couple had jointly bought a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat at Pinnacle @ Duxton for S$306,500. This became their matrimonial home.
Ms Tan said they then had to fulfil HDB’s minimum occupancy period of five years before being able to purchase private property.
Ms Tan also had two alternative cases. First, she alleged that a resulting trust arose such that the couple were the beneficial owners of 11 Martaban, given that they paid towards the downpayment and took up liability for the mortgage.
She also argued that Dr Chiang’s contribution of S$300,000 was a loan to help them meet the downpayment, when they ran into a shortfall.
Second, Ms Tan said that if the court found Mr Chiang’s contributions were solely for himself and not made on behalf of the couple, then the resulting trust was solely in Mr Chiang’s favour.
ADVERTISEMENT
READ ALSO
Woman loses claim over Tanjong Pagar HDB flat to grandson in court fight
Dr Chiang and Mr Chiang’s main defence was that no agreement existed for the property to be held by Dr Chiang on behalf of the couple. The shophouse was acquired under his name because it was intended to be his property all along, they argued.
Their narrative was that Dr Chiang invests in properties and told his son he was interested in buying a shophouse. Mr Chiang and Ms Tan then helped in searching for 11 Martaban.
Mr Chiang said he wanted to help his father realise his dream and agreed to take out the mortgage in his name, since Dr Chiang did not qualify for any bank loans.
The mortgage of S$1.28 million would be financed by proceeds from renting out the shophouse.
JUDGE’S RULING
In her ruling, Justice Hoo said that Ms Tan did not give any direct evidence of an arrangement for Dr Chiang to hold the property on trust for them.Ms Tan’s involvement in the search for a suitable shophouse to purchase was considerable, but not sufficient to find a common intention among the parties that 11 Martaban should be held for the couple, the judge found.
The financial contributions to the property also failed to support this alleged arrangement. This meant that her claim of a common intention constructive trust for the benefit of the couple must fail.
Ms Tan did not point to any concrete evidence that Mr Chiang made financial contributions on the couple’s behalf, Justice Hoo said. Mr Chiang was also the sole contributor of the downpayment and the repayment of the mortgage.
On the other hand, Ms Tan had made direct financial contributions for the couple’s Pinnacle @ Duxton flat, and did not appear to rely on Mr Chiang to pay on her behalf.
Justice Hoo also dismissed Ms Tan’s argument that Dr Chiang’s contribution of S$300,000 to the downpayment was a loan, since no evidence supported that.
The judge further rejected the Chiangs’ claims that the shophouse was a gift from Mr Chiang to his father, who owned multiple other properties.
She also dismissed the assertion that Dr Chiang, who did not stay in the shophouse and did not intend to do so, dreamed of owning such a property.
Mr Chiang was substantially involved in 11 Martaban and made many decisions regarding the property without his father’s input or approval. Dr Chiang’s involvement following the purchase was minimal, the judge said.
Nevertheless, this was “not fatal” because Ms Tan had to establish that Dr Chiang was holding the property on behalf of them, she added.
As for the issue of whether Mr Chiang’s beneficial issue in 11 Martaban forms part of the pool of matrimonial assets, Justice Hoo said this should be determined in the couple’s divorce proceeds. It would not be a matrimonial asset if it belonged solely to Dr Chiang.
Ms Tan was represented by lawyers Melanie Ho, Gavin Neo and Jolyn Khoo from WongPartnership. Dr Chiang and Mr Chiang were defended by See Chern Yang and Charmaine Chan from Drew & Napier. CNA
