Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHCR 6
- Title: Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of Judgment: 5 June 2023
- Judgment Reserved: Yes
- Judges: AR Gan Kam Yuin
- Suit No: 468 of 2021
- Taking of Accounts and Inquiries No: 1 of 2023
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Aw Chee Peng
- Defendant/Respondent: Aw Chee Loo
- Legal Areas: Land — Interest in land; Evidence — Admissibility of evidence; Evidence — Adverse inferences; Civil Procedure — Offer to Settle
- Statutes Referenced: Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA); Evidence Act (including Evidence Act 1893 and Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)); Evidence Act 1893
- Cases Cited: [2005] SGCA 4; [2023] SGHCR 6
- Related Earlier Judgment: Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2022] 5 SLR 451
- Judgment Length: 34 pages; 9,546 words
Summary
Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2023] SGHCR 6 concerns a family dispute between brothers over rental proceeds generated by two co-owned properties at 12 Jalan Gelenggang (“No 12”) and 12A Jalan Gelenggang (“No 12A”). The High Court had earlier found that the defendant co-owner was liable to account to the plaintiff for receiving more than his share of rents or profits under s 73A of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (“CLPA”). This later decision, delivered in the context of taking of accounts and inquiries (“TAI”), focuses on quantification: how much rental income was received, what deductions or set-offs were permissible, and what adverse inferences should be drawn from the defendant’s evidential posture.
The court held that the defendant must account for the full rental income actually received for No 12 from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022, rejecting the defendant’s attempt to reduce the accountable amount by claiming an unproven return of a security deposit difference. For No 12A, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence for certain tenants’ payments, rejected an unsupported deduction relating to “internet” charges, and addressed the defendant’s inconsistent position about whether there was any rental income at all. The court also considered whether expenses could be set off against the plaintiff’s share of rental income, including expenses said to relate to the separate “Dedap Residence” where the parties lived together. Ultimately, the court’s orders required the defendant to pay the plaintiff the plaintiff’s one-third share of the properly quantified rental income, subject to any allowable deductions established on the evidence.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties are brothers. They co-owned two adjacent family properties, No 12 (ground floor) and No 12A (upper unit), located at 12 Jalan Gelenggang. Their co-ownership structure was such that the plaintiff, Aw Chee Peng, was a one-third owner, while the defendant, Aw Chee Loo, and their father were the other two owners. The dispute arose because the defendant collected rental income from tenants occupying the properties and, according to the plaintiff, retained more than his share.
In the earlier substantive judgment, Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2022] 5 SLR 451, the High Court found that the defendant was liable to account personally to the plaintiff for receiving more than his share or proportion of rents or profits arising from the properties under s 73A of the CLPA. The earlier judge also held that the defendant’s liability to account commenced from 1 January 2021, entitling the plaintiff to an account for rental income received from that date onwards. The present decision is therefore not about liability in principle, but about the mechanics of accounting: what sums were received, and what adjustments should be made.
In the TAI proceedings, the plaintiff testified and relied on three subpoenaed witnesses (tenants or occupants associated with No 12A). The defendant testified for himself. The court’s task was to determine, for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022, (i) the rental income received from No 12, (ii) the rental income received from No 12A, and (iii) whether the defendant could set off expenses incurred in connection with the properties, and if so, in what amount. A further complication was that the defendant claimed he had incurred renovation and maintenance expenses relating to a separate family property, 75 Dedap Road (the “Dedap Residence”), and argued that those expenses should be set off against the plaintiff’s share of rental income from the properties.
The court’s quantification exercise required careful evaluation of documentary evidence (including tenancy agreements and calculations) and oral testimony. It also required the court to consider whether the defendant’s evidential conduct justified drawing adverse inferences—particularly where the defendant had earlier maintained, in sworn documents and correspondence, that there was no rental income for No 12A, only to later change his position when tenants were compelled to testify.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central issue was the amount the defendant must pay the plaintiff for rental income received from the properties from 1 January 2021 onwards. This required the court to resolve several sub-issues, including the precise rental income received for each property and whether any deductions could be made.
First, for No 12, the court had to determine whether the defendant could reduce the accountable rental income by claiming that part of the security deposit difference between two tenancy agreements had been returned to the tenant. This raised an evidence question: who bore the burden of proof for the alleged return, and what level of proof was required.
Second, for No 12A, the court had to determine the rental income received from multiple tenants for the relevant period. This involved assessing the credibility and consistency of tenant testimony and documentary exhibits, and whether the defendant’s attempt to deduct “internet” charges was supported by evidence. The issue also included whether adverse inferences should be drawn against the defendant based on his earlier position that there was no rental income for No 12A.
Third, the court had to decide whether the defendant could set off expenses incurred in connection with the properties, and separately whether expenses connected to the Dedap Residence could be set off. This required the court to consider the legal and evidential link between the claimed expenses and the rental income account.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court’s analysis began with the statutory framework established by s 73A of the CLPA, as applied in the earlier liability judgment. Since liability had already been determined, the TAI focused on quantification. The court approached the accounting exercise by identifying the rental income actually received and then considering whether any adjustments were permissible. The plaintiff’s entitlement was fixed at one-third of the rental income because of the co-ownership shares.
For No 12, the parties agreed on the rental amounts under two tenancy arrangements: a monthly rental of $7,950 until 9 May 2021, followed by $7,600 thereafter until 9 May 2024. The agreed total rental income received for 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022 was $183,800. The defendant sought to reduce the accountable amount by $1,050, arguing that the difference between security deposits under the two tenancy agreements had been returned to the tenant. The court rejected this reduction because the defendant failed to prove the return. The court emphasised that it was for the defendant to prove that the difference had been returned, citing authority on the burden of proof and the evidential requirements under the Evidence Act 1893 (including s 105). The court found no documentary evidence supporting the alleged return and noted that the defendant did not actually assert that the return was made in May 2021 or at any other time. The court also found the defendant’s accounting table entry—referring to “(S$7,600.00 – S$1,050.00 (return of deposit))”—insufficiently clear or reliable to establish the fact of return. Accordingly, the court held that the accountable rental income for No 12 remained the full $183,800.
For No 12A, the court dealt with multiple tenants. The parties agreed on the total rental income received from two tenants (PW2 and PW4) for the period January 2021 to August 2022 ($14,600) and for September 2022 to December 2022 ($3,160), totalling $17,760. The court then examined the defendant’s attempt to challenge the plaintiff’s calculation for one tenant (PW1) and to deduct amounts said to relate to internet charges. PW1 testified that his rent started at $510 per month in January 2021 and increased over time, reaching $660 per month from September 2022. The plaintiff accepted PW1’s evidence. The defendant argued that PW1 had paid a total of $13,600 rather than $13,640, attributing the $40 difference to internet fees of $10 per month for September to December 2022. The defendant suggested that PW1 paid this internet fee to the defendant, who then handed it to PW2.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument because the defendant did not adduce evidence about the alleged dispute between PW1 and PW2 or why the defendant would act as a go-between. The court also noted a procedural evidential gap: the defendant’s case was not put to PW1 or PW2 during their oral testimony, depriving them of an opportunity to respond. As for the handwritten note exhibit (“Internet $10”), the court held that it merely showed that an internet charge existed; it did not establish to whom the charge was payable or that it should be deducted from the defendant’s accountable rental income. Consequently, the court found that PW1 paid a total of $13,640 for the relevant period.
The court also addressed the tenant Huang’s rental payments and the start date of Huang’s tenancy. The parties agreed on the monthly rental amounts for September 2022 to December 2022 ($640 per month, totalling $2,560) and that before September 2022, Huang paid $600 per month. The dispute was whether Huang started renting from January 2021 or from March 2022. The plaintiff urged the court to draw an adverse inference against the defendant and to find that Huang started from January 2021. The court considered the defendant’s earlier stance: throughout the proceedings, including in his accounting affidavit and answers to interrogatories, and in sworn statements and correspondence through his then-lawyers, the defendant maintained that there was no rental income for No 12A. Only in his later AEIC did the defendant’s position shift. This inconsistency was central to the adverse inference analysis. The court treated the defendant’s earlier denial of rental income as a significant evidential factor, particularly because the plaintiff had taken steps to locate and compel tenants to testify, and the defendant’s changed position emerged only after those tenants were brought before the court. While the excerpt provided does not include the court’s final quantified findings for Huang and the exact adverse inference conclusion, the reasoning framework is clear: the court used the defendant’s inconsistent documentary and sworn positions to assess credibility and to determine which version of events was more likely to be true.
Finally, the court addressed set-offs for expenses. The defendant argued that he incurred expenses for renovation and maintenance of the Dedap Residence and should be allowed to set off those expenses from the rental account for No 12 and No 12A. The court treated the Dedap Residence as relevant only insofar as it bore on whether the claimed expenses were properly connected to the rental income account. The court’s approach reflected a common accounting principle: deductions must be supported by evidence and must have a sufficient nexus to the income being accounted for. Where the defendant’s claim was not sufficiently linked or proved, the court would not allow it to reduce the plaintiff’s entitlement.
What Was the Outcome?
The court determined the rental income to be accounted for by the defendant and required him to pay the plaintiff the plaintiff’s one-third share of the properly quantified rental proceeds for the period from 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022. For No 12, the court ordered that the defendant account for the full agreed rental income of $183,800, rejecting the attempted $1,050 reduction based on an unproven return of a security deposit difference.
For No 12A, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence for the tenants’ payments where the defendant’s proposed deductions were unsupported or not properly put to witnesses. The court also considered adverse inferences arising from the defendant’s earlier denial of rental income for No 12A and his later change of position. The practical effect was that the defendant’s liability to account translated into a monetary payment to the plaintiff, subject to any allowable set-offs only to the extent proved and sufficiently connected to the rental properties.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners dealing with co-ownership disputes and the quantification of liability under s 73A of the CLPA. While the earlier judgment established liability, this TAI judgment demonstrates how courts will scrutinise the evidential basis for accounting adjustments. In particular, it illustrates that a co-owner who seeks to reduce an accountable sum (for example, by claiming a returned deposit) bears the burden of proof and must provide clear, reliable evidence rather than equivocal accounting entries.
From an evidence perspective, the case is also useful for understanding how adverse inferences may be drawn in civil proceedings. The court’s focus on the defendant’s earlier sworn denials of rental income for No 12A, followed by later changes after tenants were compelled to testify, shows that inconsistency across affidavits, interrogatory answers, and correspondence can materially affect credibility and the court’s fact-finding. Lawyers should therefore ensure that clients’ positions are consistent and that any change in factual assertions is properly explained and supported.
Finally, the set-off analysis provides practical guidance on expenses in an accounting context. Claims for deductions must be supported by evidence and must have a sufficient connection to the income being accounted for. Where expenses relate to a different property used by family members, the court will require a clear evidential and conceptual link before allowing those expenses to reduce the co-owner’s obligation to account.
Legislation Referenced
- Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA) — s 73A
- Evidence Act 1893 (including Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)) — s 105
- Evidence Act (as referenced in the judgment)
Cases Cited
- Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2022] 5 SLR 451
- Chua Kok Tee David v DBS Bank Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 231
- [2005] SGCA 4
- [2023] SGHCR 6
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHCR 6 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.