[2005] SGCA 4

“have committed some sort of misconduct while the latter does not: see Partington v Reynolds (1858) 62 ER 98 at 99; Lalwani at [25]. As the Court of Appeal in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 (“Ong Jane Rebecca”) observed at [61], this means that the beneficiary seeking an account on the wilful de”

“ty”) at para 30-012). An account on the wilful default basis, unlike the common account, depends upon trustee misconduct, as we made clear in our decision in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others [2005] SGCA 4 at [61]. An account on a wilful default basis is sought by the principal where the account is shown to be”

“ct by the trustee and is not available to a beneficiary as of right. The beneficiary must allege and prove at least one act of wilful neglect or default: see Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others [2005] SGCA 4 (“Ong Jane Rebecca”) at [61]; Cheong Soh Chin at [80] and [81]. Second, the scope of an account on a wilfu”

“eparate. If there is any mixing of these funds, the law assumes that the whole is subject to the trust, in the absence of any proper accounting of the funds (Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others [2005] SGCA 4 at [35]).”

“the Assistant Registrar’s decision were dismissed by the High Court in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others (No 5) [2004] SGHC 131, and by this court in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 and Lim Lie Hoa v Ong Jane Rebecca and others and another appeal [2005] 3 SLR(R) 116.”

“he executor’s] disbursement and distribution of it”, and not what “he might have received had it not been for the default” (see the decision of this court in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 at [55], cited in Lalwani at [25]). In reality, therefore, the taking of an account on a common basis is n”

“be allowed; this is generally required where the submission is “at the very heart of the matter”: Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin Christina [2002] 1 SLR(R) 326 at [40]; Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2005] SGCA 4 at [49]–[50]; Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 at [42].”

“A prayer for an account to be taken on the basis of wilful default requires proof of at least one instance of such default (see Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 (“Rebecca Ong”) at [61]), though, if only one instance is established, that would likely have to be a significant instance of default (s”

“Mustafa Estate on a wilful default basis as the Mustafa Estate Beneficiaries never pleaded and proved that there was wilful default on Mustaq’s part: citing Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 (“Ong Jane Rebecca”) at [60]–[61]. Moreover, an account on a wilful default basis was not one of the relief”

“Second, as the Court of Appeal held in UVJ v UVH [2020] 2 SLR 336 (“UVJ”) at [25], citing Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2005] SGCA 4 (“Ong Jane Rebecca”) at [55], the scope of an account on a wilful default basis is wider than that of an account on a common basis. In an account on the basis of wilful default, the tru”

“nt on the wilful default basis to specifically plead and prove the act of wilful neglect or default (Cheong Soh Chin v Eng Chiet Shoong [2019] 4 SLR 714 at [80], citing Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa [2005] SGCA 4 at [61]).”

“ilful default basis, “the accounting party … carries a much more substantial burden of proof than that which applies to him in the case of a common account” (Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and others [2005] SGCA 4 at [55]). This point was not pressed by the plaintiff, but, in fairness and in recognition of the reality”

“arries a much more substantial burden of proof when accounting on the basis of a wilful default than that which applies in the case of a common account (see, Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others [2005] SGCA 4 at [55]; UVJ and others v UVH and others and another appeal [2020] 2 SLR 336 at [23]-[26]).”

“at, on a falsification, the onus is on the accounting party to justify the accounting entry (see Glazier Holdings at [42], approved by the Court of Appeal in Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and Others [2005] SGCA 4 (“Rebecca Ong”) at [55]). The trustee is also “subjected to a ‘roving commission’, under which the judge (”