[2015] SGHC 173

“penses. The High Court judge (“the Judge”) held in favour of the Wees with respect to the main claim and dismissed the Engs’ counterclaim (see Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“the GD”)). The Engs filed the appeal in Civil Appeal No 97 of 2014 (“CA 97”), whilst the Wees filed th”

“is common ground that a resulting trustee has a duty to account by virtue of her trusteeship. The High Court has also taken this position. In Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin”), I took the view at [38] that a trustee’s duty to account is so fundamental that it i”

“The facts of the parties’ dispute are set out in detail in my judgment on liability in Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin (HC)”). They are also canvassed in the Court of Appeal’s decision on liability in Eng Chiet Shoong and others v Cheong Soh Chin and others and”

“The facts have been set out in detail in the first instance and appellate judgments in the liability phase: Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 (“Cheong Soh Chin (HC)”) and Eng Chiet Shoong and others v Cheong Soh Chin and others and another appeal [2016] 4 SLR 728. The facts have a”

“o a reasonable prima facie inference that there may be other instances of wilful default which have yet to be uncovered: Tan Teck Kee at [90]; Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and others [2015] SGHC 173 at [40]. Examples of misconduct which have been found to warrant the taking of accounts on a wilful defa”