Case Details
- Case Title: AW CHEE PENG v AW CHEE LOO
- Citation: [2023] SGHCR 6
- Court: High Court (Registrar) – General Division
- Suit No: 468 of 2021
- Taking of Accounts and Inquiries No: 1 of 2023
- Date of Judgment: 5 June 2023
- Judge/Registrar: AR Gan Kam Yuin
- Plaintiff/Applicant: AW CHEE PENG
- Defendant/Respondent: AW CHEE LOO
- Parties: Brothers
- Legal Area(s): Land; Interest in land; Liability of co-owner to account; Civil procedure (taking of accounts/inquiries)
- Statutes Referenced: Conveyancing and Law of Property Act; Evidence Act 1893 (including s 105); Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)
- Key Statutory Provision: s 73A of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA)
- Cases Cited: [2005] SGCA 4; [2023] SGHCR 6
- Related Prior Decision: Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2022] 5 SLR 451
- Judgment Length: 34 pages; 9,818 words
Summary
AW Chee Peng v AW Chee Loo concerned a family dispute between two brothers over rental proceeds derived from two co-owned properties at 12 Jalan Gelenggang (“No 12”) and 12A Jalan Gelenggang (“No 12A”). After an earlier High Court decision determined liability, the matter proceeded to a taking of accounts and inquiries (“TAI”) to quantify the sums due. The Registrar’s task was not to revisit liability, but to determine the amount of rental income received by the defendant co-owner and the extent to which he could set off expenses against the plaintiff’s share.
The Registrar held that the defendant was liable to account personally for receiving more than his share of rents or profits under s 73A of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act. In the TAI, the court found that the defendant must account for the full rental income actually received for No 12 for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022, rejecting the defendant’s attempt to reduce the account by an alleged partial return of a security deposit. For No 12A, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence on the rental paid by one tenant and rejected the defendant’s attempt to deduct an “internet” charge without adequate evidential foundation. The court also addressed whether and to what extent the defendant could set off expenses, including expenses said to relate to a separate family residence (“the Dedap Residence”).
Overall, the decision illustrates how courts approach quantification in co-ownership accounting disputes, especially where documentary evidence is incomplete and where adverse inferences may be drawn from inconsistent positions taken by a party. It also demonstrates the evidential burden on a defendant seeking to reduce the amount to be accounted for, whether by claiming offsets or by asserting that certain sums were returned to tenants.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The parties are brothers and co-owners of the two properties, No 12 and No 12A, located at 12 Jalan Gelenggang and 12A Jalan Gelenggang respectively. No 12 is a ground-floor unit and No 12A is the unit above it. The plaintiff, AW Chee Peng, owned a one-third share, while the defendant, AW Chee Loo, and their father each owned the remaining two-thirds in equal shares. The dispute arose because the defendant, who managed the rental arrangements, received rental income and profits from the properties and did not account to the plaintiff for the plaintiff’s share.
In the earlier liability judgment, the High Court held 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 court further found that the defendant’s liability to account commenced on 1 January 2021, entitling the plaintiff to an account for rental income received from that date onwards. The present TAI therefore focused on quantification: how much rent was received, how much the plaintiff was entitled to (one-third), and what deductions or set-offs, if any, were permissible.
In addition to the two rental properties, there was a third property, the Dedap Residence at 75 Dedap Road. The parties lived there together with other family members. Although there was no rental income to account for in relation to the Dedap Residence, it became relevant to the TAI because the defendant claimed that he had incurred renovation and maintenance expenses for the Dedap Residence and argued that those expenses should be set off against the plaintiff’s share of rental income from No 12 and No 12A.
At the TAI hearing, the plaintiff testified and relied on three subpoenaed witnesses. The defendant testified for himself. The court’s determination turned heavily on the credibility and sufficiency of evidence, including documentary evidence such as tenancy agreements, accounting tables, and handwritten notes, as well as the consistency of the defendant’s position across earlier affidavits, interrogatory responses, and correspondence.
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 determine, separately, the rental income received for No 12 and for No 12A over the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022. The court also had to consider whether the defendant could set off expenses incurred in connection with the properties, and if so, the quantum of such set-offs.
Accordingly, the TAI broke down into sub-issues. First, Issue (1) asked for the amount of rental income received from No 12 for the relevant period. Second, Issue (2) asked for the amount of rental income received from No 12A for the same period. Third, Issue (3) concerned whether the defendant could set off expenses incurred in connection with the properties and, if permitted, in what amount. Fourth, Issue (4) concerned whether expenses incurred in connection with the Dedap Residence could also be set off against the plaintiff’s share of rental income.
Finally, Issue (5) concerned costs: what costs should be awarded in respect of the TAI proceedings. While costs are often consequential, the Registrar’s approach reflects the court’s view of evidential conduct and the extent to which each party’s positions were accepted or rejected.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
1. Rental income for No 12 and the evidential burden on set-off claims
For No 12, the parties agreed on the monthly rental amounts across two tenancy arrangements: $7,950 per month until 9 May 2021, and then $7,600 per month under a new tenancy agreement ending on 9 May 2024. The parties also agreed that total rental income received for the period 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022 was $183,800.00. The defendant sought to reduce the amount he had to account for by claiming that a difference between two security deposits ($1,050) had been returned to the tenant when the tenancy changed, thereby reducing the rental “for which he had to account” to $182,750.00.
The Registrar rejected this reduction. The key reasoning was evidential: it was for the defendant to prove that the difference of $1,050 had been returned to the tenant. The court relied on the principle that the party asserting a fact to reduce liability bears the burden of proof. The Registrar cited Chua Kok Tee David v DBS Bank Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 231 at [23] and s 105 of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed), emphasising that without documentary evidence or clear testimony of actual return, the court could not accept the defendant’s accounting adjustment. The defendant’s accounting table contained an equivocal line item (“(S$7,600.00 – S$1,050.00 (return of deposit))”), but the Registrar held that this did not establish, as a fact, that the tenant had been repaid the deposit difference in May 2021 or at any other time.
2. Rental income for No 12A and the treatment of inconsistent positions
For No 12A, multiple tenants were involved. The parties agreed on certain totals for rental paid by two tenants (PW2 and PW4) across two sub-periods: January 2021 to August 2022, and September 2022 to December 2022. The dispute primarily concerned the rental paid by another tenant, PW1, and whether the defendant could deduct certain amounts relating to internet charges.
PW1 testified that his monthly rental was $510 in January 2021, increasing to $560 from July 2021, $610 for July and August 2022, and $660 from September 2022. The plaintiff accepted PW1’s evidence. The defendant claimed PW1 had paid only $13,600 in total, with a $40 discrepancy attributed to internet fees of $10 per month for September to December 2022. The defendant argued that PW1 paid the internet fees to the defendant, who then handed them over to PW2, and that these sums should be deducted from the amount the defendant had to account for.
The Registrar rejected the deduction. The court noted that no evidence was adduced about the alleged dispute between PW1 and PW2, nor why the defendant would act as a go-between. Crucially, the defendant did not put this case to PW1 or PW2 during their oral testimony, depriving them of an opportunity to respond. The Registrar also found that PW4’s testimony did not assist because she stated that PW2 handled rental matters for No 12A. As for the handwritten note (Exhibit P1) stating “Internet $10”, the Registrar held that it merely showed that an internet charge existed; it did not show to whom it was chargeable or that it should be treated as a deduction from rental proceeds to be accounted for.
3. Adverse inferences and the credibility of the defendant’s position
Another important evidential theme was the plaintiff’s invitation to draw adverse inferences against the defendant regarding the existence of rental income for No 12A. The Registrar observed that the defendant had maintained, throughout the proceedings, that there was no rental income for No 12A. This position appeared in the defendant’s accounting affidavit, answers to interrogatories, sworn statements, and correspondence through his then-lawyers. Only later, in the defendant’s AEIC filed shortly before the TAI hearing, did the defendant’s position shift.
While the provided extract truncates the later portions of the judgment, the Registrar’s approach in the excerpt demonstrates the court’s willingness to scrutinise inconsistencies and to treat earlier sworn positions as relevant to credibility. The court also used the subpoenaed testimony of tenants to test the defendant’s account. This is consistent with the broader evidential logic in accounting disputes: where a party’s narrative changes over time and is unsupported by documentary proof, the court may prefer the evidence of independent witnesses and may draw adverse inferences from the absence of earlier disclosure.
4. Set-off of expenses and the relevance of the Dedap Residence
The TAI also addressed whether the defendant could set off expenses incurred in connection with the properties and, separately, whether expenses relating to the Dedap Residence could be set off against rental income. The Dedap Residence was relevant because the defendant claimed he had incurred renovation and maintenance expenses there and argued that those should reduce the plaintiff’s entitlement from the rental accounts.
Although the extract does not include the full reasoning on the Dedap Residence set-off, the structure of the issues indicates that the Registrar treated the set-off question as one requiring a clear nexus between the claimed expenses and the rental properties, as well as proof of the quantum. In co-ownership accounting, set-offs are not presumed; they must be justified by evidence and by legal principles governing what expenses can properly be deducted from rents or profits to be accounted for under s 73A. The court’s treatment of the No 12 security deposit claim foreshadows this approach: where the defendant seeks a reduction, the defendant must prove the factual basis and the amount.
What Was the Outcome?
The Registrar determined the amounts the defendant had to account for based on the rental income actually received and the evidence adduced. For No 12, the court held that the defendant must account for the full agreed rental income of $183,800.00 for 1 January 2021 to 31 December 2022, rejecting the claimed deduction of $1,050 for an alleged return of part of the security deposit due to lack of proof. For No 12A, the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence on the rental paid by PW1 and rejected the defendant’s attempt to deduct internet charges without adequate evidential support and without proper procedural fairness in putting the case to witnesses.
The practical effect is that the plaintiff’s entitlement—one-third of the rental income—was calculated on the basis of the court’s findings on gross rental receipts, subject to any set-offs the court accepted (if any) after assessing the evidential and legal basis for those deductions. The Registrar also made orders as to costs for the TAI proceedings, reflecting the extent to which the parties’ positions were accepted or rejected.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is significant for practitioners dealing with co-ownership disputes and accounting claims under s 73A of the CLPA. While the earlier judgment established liability and the commencement date for accounting, the present TAI illustrates how courts operationalise that liability by quantifying rental receipts and applying strict evidential standards to deductions and set-offs. The case underscores that a defendant who seeks to reduce the amount to be accounted for must prove the factual basis for the reduction, particularly where the reduction depends on events such as the return of deposits or the allocation of charges between tenants.
From an evidence perspective, the Registrar’s reasoning highlights the importance of consistency in litigation positions. Where a party maintains a position that is later contradicted, the court may treat the inconsistency as relevant to credibility and may prefer independent witness testimony obtained through subpoena. The decision also demonstrates the court’s insistence on procedural fairness: arguments that were not put to witnesses during oral testimony are less likely to be accepted, especially where the argument depends on contested factual circumstances.
For law students and litigators, the case is also useful as a template for how TAI proceedings are structured: the court identifies discrete accounting periods, separates rental streams by property and tenant, and then addresses deductions as separate legal and evidential questions. This approach can guide counsel in preparing accounting evidence, ensuring that documentary records (tenancy agreements, deposit receipts, payment records, and expense invoices) are assembled early and that any claimed offsets are supported by admissible proof.
Legislation Referenced
- Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA) – s 73A
- Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed) – s 105
- Evidence Act 1893 (general provisions on admissibility and proof)
Cases Cited
- Chua Kok Tee David v DBS Bank Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 231
- Aw Chee Peng v Aw Chee Loo [2022] 5 SLR 451
- [2005] SGCA 4
- AW CHEE PENG v AW CHEE LOO [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.