Singapore Court Calls the Trust Deal a Big Dog‑Bite
In a legally clever move that would have left the hubby a pauper and their little tot a millionaire, a former lawyer tried to trick her husband into signing a deed of trust that almost sealed his fate. The top court has slammed the appeal, saying the whole set‑up was downright unfair.
Who’s in the Picture?
- Boy: “BOK” – a 34‑year‑old energy executive, on the brink of becoming a fortune‑maker.
- Girl: 38‑year‑old ex‑lawyer who filed for divorce on 25 Nov 2015.
- Baby: Two‑year‑old son who would have inherited a $25 million windfall.
The Incident
On March 19, 2014, BOK’s late mother was murdered in a separate case. Seven days later, on March 26, he signed a trust deed in isolation and grieving. The deed said all of his assets, including the rumored $25 million inheritance, would be held by the couple for their son.
Why the Court Moved
Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang said the deed was “by no means fair, just and reasonable.” He highlighted that BOK had no independent legal advice and that the transaction was “clearly a deal at an undervalue.” Both flags tipped the scales toward unconscionability – a term that means the contract was unjust and exploitative.
Unconscionability – Bottom Line
- “A narrow doctrine of unconscionability applies in Singapore.”
- It covers not just the poor or ignorant but also those suffering physical, mental or emotional infirmities.
- BOK’s grief made him unable to make sound decisions, and his wife exploited that.
The Court’s Call‑Back
After the High Court set aside the trust last December, the duo appealed to a five‑judge panel (an unusual move, but a sign of the gravity). In 2018, the Court of Appeal – with Judges Phang, Steven Chong, and Justices Belinda Ang, Chan Seng Onn, and Quentin Loh – found the appeal hopeless.
“Our finding that the husband suffered from acute grief that impaired his ability to make decisions and made him susceptible to influence is of central relevance here,” the judgment read. The court also reminded that a lack of independent advice or underselling isn’t mandatory proof, but when present, it underscores the exploitative nature of the deal.
Takeaway
When a contract is signed during a time of emotional instability – especially when the person is grieving a recent tragedy – courts will look hard for signs of unfair dominance and, if found, set the deal aside.
So, next time you’re in a vulnerable state: check that you’re getting independent counsel. Don’t let a stressed spouse win a bid for your fortune.
