[2008] SGHC 110

“e right of survivorship turned on the following successive stages of analysis. First, citing the judgment of Prakash J (as she then was) in Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus v Sandra Audrey Jude Collars [2008] SGHC 110 (“Collars Muriel Esther”, at [30]), Ang JC noted that the onus would be on the person challenging the ri”

“(a) First, citing the grounds of decision of Judith Prakash J (as she then was) in Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus v Sandra Audrey Jude Collars [2008] SGHC 110 at [30], in the case of a joint bank account, there is a presumption that the survivor(s) takes the whole of the benefit of the account in the absence of a contr”

“onus is on the person challenging this right of survivorship to demonstrate such a contrary intention: Estate of Yang Chun at [53], citing Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus v Sandra Audrey Jude Collars [2008] SGHC 110 at [30]. The rule of survivorship may be displaced by a resulting trust or a presumed resulting trust; se”

“intended the defendant to be the sole beneficiary. The reasoning in Tan Seng Pow was affirmed by Prakash J, as she then was, in Collars Muriel Esther de Jesus and Another v Sandra Audrey Jude Collars [2008] SGHC 110 at [30]; in the case of a joint bank account, there is a presumption “that the survivor [takes] the whol”