Revisiting Sham Trusts: Common Intention, Estoppel and Illegality

The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer pp. 31-44, 2018

Posted: 4 Mar 2018 Last revised: 20 Mar 2018

See all articles by Alvin See

Alvin See

Singapore Management University - Yong Pung How School of Law

Date Written: March 1, 2018

Abstract

This article examines the prevailing view that, to find a sham trust, the settlor’s shamming intention must be shared by the trustee. This common intention requirement, it is argued, overprotects the trustee and the beneficiary, and suffers from inconsistent application to conceptually identical cases. Moreover, where the sham is concocted for the perpetuation of an illegal purpose, the requirement may contradict the operation of the illegality doctrine. This article proposes that the two doctrines ought to align and that any prejudice to an innocent trustee or beneficiary can be addressed with more specific solutions such as a change of position defence or an analogous estoppel defence.

Suggested Citation

See, Alvin, Revisiting Sham Trusts: Common Intention, Estoppel and Illegality (March 1, 2018). The Conveyancer and Property Lawyer pp. 31-44, 2018, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3133873

Alvin See (Contact Author)

Singapore Management University - Yong Pung How School of Law ( email )

55 Armenian Street
Singapore, 179943
Singapore

Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?

Paper statistics

Abstract Views
579
PlumX Metrics