When love ends and property is involved, the courts are often left to untangle arrangements that seemed perfectly logical to a couple in love but deeply murky to everyone else. A landmark ruling by Singapore's Court of Appeal in May 2026 has done exactly that — and the outcome has significant implications for how the country's courts view both property ownership and stamp duty evasion.

A Condo, a Couple, and an Unusual Split

Wong Mei Lee Millie, 38, and Ngor Shing Rong Jake, 35, purchased a unit at the Hillcrest Arcadia condominium in Bukit Timah for $1.865 million in December 2019. On the surface, the ownership arrangement looked straightforward — but it was anything but. Despite Ngor contributing the majority of the purchase price, the couple registered their legal ownership in the ratio of 99:1, with Wong holding a 99% share and Ngor just 1%.

The asymmetry was deliberate. According to Wong, the arrangement served a dual purpose: it was meant to address her insecurities about fidelity, and it offered a pathway to avoid paying the Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty (ABSD) should the couple ever wish to purchase a second property together.

Breakup, Lawsuit, and Competing Claims

The couple broke up in November 2020, and a dispute arose over who truly owned what share of the property. Ngor subsequently sought a declaration that he held 71% of the beneficial interest in the condominium, while Wong maintained that her 99% registered share reflected both her legal and beneficial ownership.

The case wound its way to the High Court, which in June 2025 sided with Ngor. The High Court found that Wong held 54.22% of the property on trust for Ngor, after considering the parties' respective financial contributions. The judge also found that Ngor did not intend to immediately and unconditionally benefit Wong with his contributions, but only if he cheated on her. Wong appealed.

The Court of Appeal's Reversal

In a written judgment delivered on 20 May 2026, a three-judge Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's findings entirely. Justice of the Court of Appeal Hri Kumar Nair found that the couple intended for the 99:1 ratio to reflect their legal and beneficial ownership, and that even if a resulting trust had arisen, allowing Ngor's claim for a bigger share would amount to condoning an illegal purpose — specifically, the evasion of ABSD.

The court took particular issue with Ngor's credibility. His account of a so-called "cheating condition" — whereby Wong would only truly own 99% of the property if he were unfaithful — was found to be riddled with contradictions. The Court of Appeal noted that Ngor's explanation of the cheating condition had shifted at trial: he first suggested the condition meant Wong would fully own the property if he cheated, then later suggested he simply would not contest her 99% interest under that scenario. No explanation was given for the inconsistency.

By contrast, the court found Wong's version of events more coherent. Her position was that she wanted them to remain together, and because she was insecure about Ngor's fidelity, she wanted 99% ownership as a demonstration of his commitment. If he cheated and they broke up, he would be left with just 1% of the property and would no longer benefit from it as a joint investment. In the court's words, the property was held by her "as ransom."

The ABSD Angle: A Second Reason to Dismiss Ngor's Claim

Beyond the factual findings, the court added a significant legal note. It ruled that allowing Ngor to claim a larger beneficial interest — retaining value in the property while being free to purchase a second home without paying ABSD — would effectively amount to tax evasion. Given the seriousness of that, the court found it would not be disproportionate to deny his claim entirely on grounds of illegality.

This matters because the 99-1 structure is not merely a romantic quirk — it is a recognised manoeuvre in Singapore's property market. Co-owners first purchase a property in a 99:1 ratio, then "decouple" by having the 1% owner transfer their share. That person, now owning no property, can then purchase a second home without incurring ABSD — which stands at 20% for Singapore citizens buying a second residential property, and 30% for a third. Authorities have been scrutinising such arrangements closely, and this ruling signals that courts will not lend assistance to arrangements that facilitate stamp duty avoidance.

Outcome and Costs

The Court of Appeal ruled in Wong's favour, allowing her to retain the full 99% share of the condominium. Ngor was also ordered to pay Wong $50,000 in costs for the appeal.

What This Case Tells Us

The ruling is a reminder that in Singapore, property ownership arrangements between couples — particularly unconventional ones — will be scrutinised not just for financial contributions, but for the underlying intention behind them. Emotional arrangements made in the context of a romantic relationship can carry legal weight, but so do the public policy implications of those arrangements.

For couples considering similar property structures, the lesson is clear: put intentions in writing, understand the stamp duty implications thoroughly, and do not assume that financial contribution alone will determine ownership if things go wrong.