The property was registered in the 99:1 ratio to quell the woman's fear that the man may be unfaithful to her. HUTTONS
SINGAPORE: A couple who bought a Bukit Timah condominium unit and registered their ownership in the ratio of 99:1 broke up less than a year later, and ended up tussling in court over the property.
Jake Ngor, 35 – who held the 1 per cent share despite contributing most of the US$1.865 million purchase price of the Hillcrest Arcadia unit – sued Millie Wong, 38, who insisted that she owned 99 per cent of the property.
Ngor said the property was registered in the 99:1 ratio mainly to quell Wong’s fear and insecurity that he may be unfaithful to her, as well as to avoid paying additional buyer’s stamp duty (ABSD) if they were to buy a second property.
In a written judgment on June 30, the High Court rejected Wong’s assertion that she owned 99 per cent of the property.
Senior Judge Lee Seiu Kin said Mr Ngor did not intend to “immediately and unconditionally” benefit Wong with his financial contributions towards the property.
Justice Lee found that Ngor had intended to benefit Wong only if he cheated on her.
However, there was no evidence or even any suggestion that Ngor had been unfaithful to Wong.
It necessarily followed then that there was no common intention for her to own 99 per cent of the property, said the judge.
After considering each owner’s financial contributions, he found that Mr Ngor owns a 54.22 per cent beneficial interest in the property.
A beneficial interest refers to the right to benefit from an asset, even if another person is the registered owner.
In Singapore, when there is evidence that a person contributed to the purchase of a property, the law presumes that the contributor holds a proportionate beneficial interest in the property, unless there is evidence to the contrary.
In other words, the registered owner is holding the property, or a part of it, on trust for the contributor.
Justice Lee also considered whether Ngor’s claim should be denied on grounds of illegality.
The judge noted that this case is the first of its kind in dealing with the novel question of whether someone who owns 1 per cent of a property in a 99:1 arrangement should be blocked from asserting a case on grounds of a trust because the deal would have been illegal.
The pair admitted that they planned for Ngor to transfer and pay taxes on his 1 per cent share to Wong when they decide to buy a second property.
Justice Lee said there was no nefarious intention or knowledge that this would be an unlawful act. Moreover, the plan was never carried out.
The judge made it clear that this strategy should not be confused with the “99-to-1” arrangements, where buyers who stagger a single transaction into multiple transactions to evade ABSD have been penalised by the taxman.
Ngor, a wealth manager, and Wong, a financial consultant, began a romantic relationship shortly after they met in mid-2018.
Early on in their relationship, they talked about their future and plans to purchase properties.
In December 2019, they exercised an option to purchase the Hillcrest Arcadia unit.
The purchase was completed in March 2020, and the property was rented out throughout the couple’s relationship.
They serviced the monthly mortgage with their Central Provident Fund monies and the rental proceeds.
Cracks soon developed in their relationship, largely fuelled by Wong’s insecurity, which led to the couple’s separation in November that year, said Ngor.
Despite their break-up, the pair continued to talk amicably about matters relating to the property.
In 2022, they discussed the sale of the property. However, in December 2022 and January 2023, she started ignoring his messages.
On Jan 18, 2023, Wong sent him a long message, asserting that she owned the entirety of her 99 per cent legal share in the property.
He filed the lawsuit in July 2023, seeking a beneficial interest in the property proportionate to his financial contributions.
According to the judgment, Ngor, who was represented by Tito Isaac, argued that he and Wong “did not understand the concept of beneficial ownership and simply decided to co-own the property in layman’s terms without any discussion on their actual beneficial interests”.
He contended that he intended to let Wong have 99 per cent of the property only in two situations: If he cheats on her, or if they decide to buy another property.
Ngor said that outside these two scenarios, it made no financial sense for him, as a young man starting out in his career, to make an outright gift of such an expensive property. He argued that Wong holds the property on trust for him in proportion to his financial contributions.
Wong, who was represented by lawyer Terence Tan, contended that there was no trust arising in Ngor’s favour.
She said she was extremely insecure and needed assurance from Ngor of his commitment to the relationship, and he showed his sincerity by agreeing to register her as a 99 per cent owner of the property.
Wong argued that they did not distinguish between legal and beneficial ownership, and treated her registered 99 per cent interest as equivalent to her actual ownership of the property.
Hillcrest Arcadia was put up for collective sale for $920 million in April 2025. The tender closed on May 22 with no bids, and the potential sale has moved into private treaty talks. - The Straits Times/ANN
