LEE BEE KIOW v LEE BEE HONG

Case Significance

Illustrates the apportionment of expenses between co-proprietors under section 343(b) of the National Land Code, holding that costs necessary to preserve the property, such as assessment and quit rents, are shared equally, while utilities benefiting only the occupying co-owner are not.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the taking of accounts between co-proprietors of a residential property. The appellant and the respondent, who are sisters, had jointly purchased the property and were its registered proprietors. The respondent had been in exclusive occupation since the purchase and claimed to have incurred renovation costs, while the appellant had partially repaid the bank loan taken jointly to reduce the monthly instalments, which the parties bore equally. Unable to agree on the division of the sale proceeds, they could not sell the property, and the dispute came before the courts, engaging section 343(b) of the National Land Code and the apportionment of various categories of expense — the partial redemption sum and renovation costs, the necessary sale and purchase expenses, and the expenses related to the house such as assessment and quit rents — as well as the appellant's claim for a rental sum in respect of the respondent's exclusive possession. Reviewing the High Court's order, the Court of Appeal varied it so as to allocate the expenses more fairly between the co-proprietors. It held that expenses directly related to the property and necessary to preserve it, such as the assessment and quit rents that the respondent had been paying over many years, were incurred for the benefit of both co-proprietors and fell on them jointly, so that they should be borne equally, subject to proof. It deliberately excluded the utility expenses, such as water and electricity, from that category, because those had been incurred only for the benefit of the respondent, who was in occupation. Concluding that the several categories of expense should be shared equally to the extent proved, the Court varied the High Court's order accordingly. The decision illustrates the equitable accounting that a court undertakes between co-proprietors who cannot agree, allocating the burdens of ownership according to who truly benefited from each category of expense and who bore the cost of preserving the common asset.