Claim LEANS TOWARDS FATHER’S Type
Justice Choo noted Mr Lim’s evidence was “without elaboration and without guile”, saying that despite being ignorant, he appeared “forthright” under traverse- investigation.
The judge said,” I believe him when he claimed that it was the defendant ( Ms. Lim ) who “put her name on the documents herself,” adding that he would have accepted Mr. Lim’s claim that he had invested in the properties as investments for himself.  ,
” But I need not rely merely on my understanding of the claimant’s evidence alone. The information on the whole elevation towards the plaintiff’s version”.
Judge Choo brought up the first two disputed components, both of which were purchased in 2004, and that he thought it was” distinct to me” that Mr. Lim had chosen and accepted the words.  ,
Mr. Lim pointed out that he was ignorant and that the “documentation for each home was only done once and later, kept away” because he did not know those two qualities were purchased under combined names.
The defendant kept both the office and personal records for the claimant, not the claimant, who had no interest in checking the document he could n’t read.
Additionally, the prosecutor explained that Mr. Lim was responsible for making payments whenever there was need to be used for the components.  ,
Judge Choo noted that the data demonstrated that Mr. Lim was in charge of the accounts ‘ use and control over the money, despite Ms. Lim’s claim that she deserves credit for the payments made to one joint DBS account and another joint UOB joint accounts.  ,
According to him, Ms. Lim did not use the funds for herself or deposit any money into the mutual records.
The prosecutor added that Mr. Lim had also purchased qualities under his own name or assisted in doing so.  ,
Ms Lim conceded this in judge, acknowledging , that her parents had helped her in the borrowing of five qualities in her single brand. She paid$ 2,500 to purchase a Mount Faber home in her own name in 2005, including the downpayment.  ,
Justice Choo cited the fact that that” the defendant’s claim that the claimant gave her the four components as combined tenants” is disproven.
Mr. Lim would have given the four qualities to her in her own name, just as he did with the five of those qualities and the ones he gave his other kids, he added.  ,
Because Mr. Lim was unable to obtain bank loans in his own name, he claimed that it was more probable that the four denied qualities were managed by mutual accounts and were purchased in joint names.  ,
Critically, he said, the parameters ‘ payments and mortgage loans were all documented in English.  ,
” The plaintiff had no idea what was written, certainly because he was deep, but because he was illiterate”, added Justice Choo.  ,
The property attorney gave her father a copy of the agreement, according to Ms. Lim.
She insisted that Mr. Lim was aware of the benefits of a mutual consideration when she requested an opening of it from a bank.
However, the prosecutor argued that Mr. Lim’s lack of comprehension of the banker’s conversation, if at all, was “unclear” because he was” plainly incapable of reading English.”
Mr. Lim argued in court that he knew the joint accounts existed and that the rental income from the four components had been deposited there.  ,
The judge argued that this was possible because Mr. Lim had discovered in the year 2020 that the accounts would receive the rental income from the properties.  ,
Mr. Lim himself shut down the UOB joint accounts and transferred the balance to his personal bank account, while Ms. Lim was instructed to shut down the DBS combined account.  ,
According to the judge,” I am of the opinion that the plaintiff had treated and operated the shared accounts as if they were under his sole name” based on his deposits and withdrawals of cash and on the power he had over the shutting of the transactions.  ,
Justice Choo even brought up the question of Mr. Lim’s 2015 will, which he and his family made.  ,
According to the will, Mr. Lim had already listed the two denied qualities in his distribution list for 2015, indicating that he still considered them to be his own.
THE LIMS USED TO BE A “CLOSE- KNIT” FAMILY
Justice Choo cited Ms. Lim’s “appeared guardeared and evaded answering questions instantly frequently” as opposed to her father.  ,
Despite having gathered the aid of four of her sisters, the information they provided was “largely no helpful”, he said.  ,
They repeatedly repeat each other’s thoughts, he continued, “in a conscious effort to bring up a fact that the claimant intended to jointly rent the four components to the defendant.”
” The inferences from their evidence inclines me to find the defendant’s case contrived” . ,
But Justice Choo noted one of Ms Lim’s states had a “ring of reality”- that her relatives had been” near- knit”.  ,
” The data suggests that this was so ,-  , until the plaintiff wanted to sell the four parameters”, he said.  ,
” Even the tapestry of close- knit families can be unravelled by greed” . ,
After on, we’ll hear about the cost issue.