Property Law and Co-Ownership

This assignment explores the complexities of property law, particularly concerning co-ownership. It analyzes a hypothetical situation involving Rose, George, and Paul, examining their respective interests in a property acquired during marriage and inheritance. The analysis delves into the legal concepts of joint tenancy, equitable interest, and beneficial ownership, drawing upon relevant case law to illustrate these principles. Students are challenged to apply legal knowledge to a practical scenario, demonstrating their understanding of co-ownership rights and liabilities.

Legal aspects

Table of Contents
Case description.........................................................................................................................3
Rules...........................................................................................................................................3
Equitable interest....................................................................................................................3
Trust.......................................................................................................................................4
Estoppel..................................................................................................................................4
Licence...................................................................................................................................5
Conclusion..................................................................................................................................7
References..................................................................................................................................8

CASE DESCRIPTION
Issue: In the considered case situation; Plaintiff (Paul) is planning to sue to evict defendant
(George) because according to him; he is the sole legal owner as per the applicability right of
survivorship since rose died. However, the defendant will argue for an equitable interest in
the cited property.
Plaintiff: Paul
Defendant: George
RULES
Equitable interest
Definition: Property ownership can be split into two categories: legal interest and equitable
interest (Penner, 2016). An equitable interest refers to an interest held by an asset of an
equitable title that shows property’ s benefitted interest which will provide the owner the
right to acquire legal title, or can make claims on the equitable ground like holding of interest
by a beneficiary of the trust (Wang, 2016). Equitable interest is considered as a right in equity
that might be secured by an equitable cure.
Case: Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014]
Brief fact
In the cited case; associated parties is one married couple (octogenarians), Mr See and Mdm
Chan, the concern of this dispute was a lodge home been purchased during 1983 for approx.
$1.8 million (now valued at $20 million) and is registered by the name of Mdm Chan. The
price for the purchase came from several sources. After thy purchased the bungalow, Mdm
Chan implemented a legal representative for Mr See their son (eldest), giving them the
responsibility to maintain the bungalow and put in to sell for such price as they see fit. In
2011, Mdm Chan cancelled the power of attorney as he thought that Mr See was selling the
house. This provoked Mr See to ask for the announcement that he was beneficial party to the
agreement. However, Mdm Chan counterclaimed that the bungalow was a present to her as
per the assumption of advancement.
Main outcome

In Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] SGCA 36, significant explanations were given by
the Court of Appeal regarding the association between the resulting trust and common
intention beneficial trust for the aim of determining beneficiary interest in the event of
premise dispute. In this issue, which has involved many suppositions and was remained
released in Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2007] SGCA 54 where the same court
merely inveterate the sustained significance of the undistinguishable assumptions of resulting
trust and advancement.
Trust
Definition: A trust is not related as a divided legal entity. On the other hand, by considering
traditional understanding it can be said that trust is announced on the property, property title
is divided into legal and equitable interest (Allen & Kraakman, 2016). When the property is
owned by the trust, a trustee had the legal title of the property, while the beneficiary holds the
equitable title in the property (Singer, 2013). By making use of this method, it is the
responsibility of trustee to manage the trust property, for example, making an investment in a
trust fund also paying taxes and charges. In short, the trustee has the legal title whereas the
beneficiary has a beneficial title.
The present case is related to express trusts in which the legal owner had provided a
declaration that they are holding the property for the benefit of indicated beneficiaries (Smith,
2016). Further; declaration in such trusts describes the proportion or manner in which they
are to hold beneficial interest. This also covers provisions related to express declaration as it
will override the ideologies of constructive or resulting trusts until and unless the assertion
was obtained through mistake or fraud.
Case: Mascall v Mascall [1984]
Brief fact
A father wants to grant land to his son. He prepared and provided him with a contract of
transferring the land with a certificate of it. Later then they fell out and consequently, father
changed his opinion of transferring the land. His son had not still left with the legal
registration at Her Majesty's Land Registry. Therefore, the father claimed that the property is
still in his name.
Main outcome

Lawton LJ and Browne-Wilkinson LJ provided a judgement stating that the premises belongs
to the son, and was found on reliance for the son by his father, as the father made many
efforts to make the transfer more effective. However, with no registration, and no transfer of
legal title in equity, the father was not able to gain his agreement back.
This case is supported by the principle of transfer of legal title to the trustee. This case
implied that this necessity is applicable only in a situation where the legal owner has the
intention to create an express trust through the transfer of legal title to a third party. In the
cited situation; the declaration by an individual is not adequate for the formation of trust, as
express trust will come into actuality where the transmission of the legal title is supported by
registration or the instant that the act of transferee is in his supremacy to transferal of the
legal title to the transferor.
Estoppel
Definition
The promissory estoppels doctrine is characteristically described in two distinguished
paragraphs. First one is that it is one of the primary principles that is engaged in all Courts of
Equity, that in case parties have agreed to the separate and definite terms involved in legal
results or forfeitures, then after with their own approval they enter in a negotiation course that
has the outcome of leading any party to assume that rights taking place under the agreement
will not impose, or kept secretly (Strong, 2016). An individual who may have imposed these
rights will not be entitled to impose them in an inequitable state regarding the dealing that
took place among the parties. The second paragraph says that if an individual is holding
contractual rights in opposition to others inducing their conduct those not in favour of those
having such rights to suppose that these rights would not be imposed or will be kept secret for
a certain period of time (Hayes, 2017). Those individuals will not be entitled by Court of
Equity to impose right till the specified time. (Halsbury’s Laws of Singapore vol 9(2)
(LexisNexis, 2003) at para 110.277).
Case: QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Winterthur Insurance (Far East) Pte Ltd
[2005] Brief fact
During 1956, Mr Gillet dropped school at the age of fifteen for the purpose of working at the
farm of Mr Holt. His parents desired that he would have continued his school and completed
his levels of O and A. Mr Holt never married and had no kids. He liked the enthusiasm of Mr

Gillet and started his training and assured to pass the business to him. He made various
promises to him all along his working time-period that in near future the farm will be passed
to him and had prepared numerous wills stating him as a beneficiary. In regards to these
assurances, Mr Gillet agreed to work on a low wage for long hours and did not continue his
education or look for work. In 1995, on the other hand, a dispute was raised; Mr Holt
discharged Mr Gillet and further changed his will to eliminate Mr Gillet. Mr Gillet was
dependant on proprietary estoppel. The trial judge declined the claim affirming that since a
will can be altered, further there was no irreversible promise subsequent Taylor v Dickens.
Mr Gillet appealed.
Main outcome
Therefore the appeal was entitled, MrGillet was allowed to the absolute tenure of the farm
and the compensated amount of £100,000 the omission from the rest of the agribusiness.
Robert Walker LJ
In regards to the proprietary estoppels nature:
At the initial stage, it is significant to consider proprietary estoppel doctrine is not treated as
subdivided into three or four watertight compartments. Both of the sides accepted this, and at
the time of oral dispute in this court it continuously became clear that the worth of relevant
promises might impact the issue of trust, that trust and detriment are mostly tangled, and that
if or of not there is dissimilar requirement for mutual understanding might rely on the
forming and understanding of other elements. In addition to this, the basic principle that
equity is taken into consideration to avoid reprehensible demeanour permeates all the
elements of the doctrine.
Licence
Definition
A special permission granted to do something on other’s property that, without the license,
can be avoided legally or can increase legal actions in the trespass (Nel, 2014). The asset’
owner having obligations of statutory and legal rights to remain in good faith of beneficiaries,
this is usually an authorized trust entity (Newman, 2015). A trust is brought in by a
Settlement Deed implemented among the trustee and settler, generally, an expertise trustee
authorized in the specified jurisdiction and transferring of assets in the trust while

implementing Settlement Deed, settler must make a decision of these viable terms in the trust
inclusive of
• Who are the primary beneficiaries?
• Whom to hire as a trust protector?
• Which authorities will be retained by settlor?
Further; in the determination of legal entitlement Reimbursement of household bills,
furnishings, and home improvements is not considered (Wood, 2017).
Case: Burns v Burns [1984]
Brief fact
In the given case the plaintiff, Valerie Burns, had resided with the defendant for nineteen
years but they never get married. The house in which they were residing had been purchased
in the name of the defendant as they paid the purchase price in which there was no financial
contribution by plaintiff making. However, she had acted as a homemaker as she was obliged
for execution domestic duties. Although she had made monetary contributions in terms of
household bills and refurbishing.
Main outcome
In the cited case; the court had provided judgement that initially plaintiff did not make any
financial contribution for the purpose of acquisition to the property such as mortgage
instalments thus as a consequence she does not hold any right related to beneficial entitlement
for their family home. Cited decisions were affirmed by Lords Justice Waller, Fox and May
in the Court of Appeal.
Case: Pettitt v Pettitt [1970]
Brief fact
In the considered case Mrs Pettitt had inherited a house in which she resides with her
husband. In-house; he spent £800 on upkeeps and renovation of the property. Later she sold
that house in 1961 and bought other property in her name alone. In this sale transaction,
some money was left from the sale so she gives the same to her husband for the purchase a
car. They reside in the new house for 4 years and later they divorced. After divorce; her

husband made the claim that he is having a beneficial interest in the cited property on the
basis of improvements made by him to a new house.
Main outcome
In this case; the court had held that Mr Pettitt does not have any interest in the property
because improvements made were not sufficient for the creation of an equitable interest in the
property.
CONCLUSION
By considering the above-described provisions and analysis; conclusion can be drawn that
with the death of Rose; George and Paul will be co-owners. Furthermore; Paul is not entitled
to evict George as he has a legal interest in property due to his name on the title deed. It is
because; in the considered case situation; Rose and Paul were having the agreement of joint
tenancy due to which they are co-owners of the property. Further; George’s father sold their
flat to generate funds for extension house of his son and money for the same was given to
Rose and Paul. By considering this factor; George will be considered an occupier of the
property and having equitable interest.

REFERENCES
Books and Journals
Allen, W. T., & Kraakman, R. (2016). Commentaries and cases on the law of business
organization. Wolters Kluwer law & business.
Hayes, M. S. (2017). Trust Law-Beneficiary's Interest in Open-Class Discretionary Trust
Amounts to Mere Expectancy Despite Ascertainable Standard-Pfannenstiehl v.
Pfannenstiehl. Suffolk UL Rev., 50, 367.
Nel, E. (2014). An interpretive account of unconscionability in trust law. Obiter, 35(1), 81-
93.
Newman, A. (2015). Trust Law in the Twenty-First Century: Challenges to Fiduciary
Accountability. Quinnipiac Prob. LJ, 29, 261.
Penner, J. (2016). The law of trusts. Oxford University Press.
Singer, J. W. (2013). Property as the Law of Democracy. Duke LJ, 63, 1287.
Smith, B. S. (2016). Statutory discretion or common law power? Some reflections on “veil
piercing” and the consideration of (the value of) trust assets in dividing matrimonial property
at divorce–Part One. Journal for Juridical Science, 41(2), 68-94.
Strong, S. I. (Ed.). (2016). Arbitration of Trust Disputes: Issues in National and International
Law. Oxford University Press.
Wang, J. (2016). The Rise of Singapore As International Financial Centre: Political Will,
Industrial Policy, and Rule of Law.
Wood, P. R. (2017). What happened to the trust in financial law?. Capital Markets Law
Journal.
Cases
Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] SGCA 36
Mascall v Mascall [1984] EWCA Civ 10

QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Winterthur Insurance (Far East) Pte Ltd [2005] 1
SLR(R) 711.
Burns v Burns [1984] Ch 317, [1984] 1 All ER 244)
Pettitt v Pettitt [1970] AC 777 House of Lords