Property Law Report: Jason's Legal Interest in the Property

This report delves into a property law case concerning Jason's claim to a property, analyzing his legal and equitable interests in relation to a will. The report examines whether Jason possesses a legal interest in the property, considering the validity of the will and its impact on trust creation. It explores Jason's potential equitable interest and assesses the rights of other parties involved, particularly Janet's sister. The analysis considers relevant case laws such as Stack v Dowden and Gissing v Gissing to determine the existence and extent of Jason's claims. Furthermore, the report investigates the types of remedies Jason can pursue, including resulting trust, consecutive trust, and estoppels, referencing cases like Jennings v Rice. The conclusion synthesizes the findings, determining Jason's legal standing and available recourse within the context of Singapore property law, emphasizing the importance of the will and the lack of evidence to support Jason's legal claim, while acknowledging his potential for equitable remedies.

Running head: PROPERTY LAW
Property Law

PROPERTY LAW 1
Introduction
Property law is that area of law that is governed by various forms of ownership and
tenancy in real property and in personal property within the system of common law. In
Singapore, the property has been governed in accordance with the common law legal system.
In the civil law system there is a division between movable and immovable property.
Conveyance is the legal process for transferring of property from one owner to another
owner. In conveyance, a contract has been made between the buyer and the seller (Martin,
2016). In this report, it will be discussed on the issues that whether the Jason has legal
interest in the property. The validity of Will in regards to Trust will be discussed in the
report. Jason equitable interest in the property will be discussed that whether Jason has the
right in the property. The remedies will be discussed that Jason can demand from the Court.
The remedies can be demand on resulting trust, consecutive trust, estoppels and other
remedies.
Legal Issues
There are many legal issues have been arise in this case that are:
 Does Jason have a legal interest in the property?
 Does Janet sister have the right in the property?
 Does Jason have an equitable interest in the property?
 Does Jason is accountable for remedies for the legal title?
Jason Legal Interest
The legal interest in the property arise from the property that has been against that there
In Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 case, it has been said when the property has been
purchased jointly and the beneficial interest in the property will be same. Legal interest arise
out of when there is evidence of trust.
The case state that Janet has the legal right in the property, she is 50% beneficiary in the
property, and after the death of her husband she is the sole beneficiary and as applied in the
case she can transfer the property and as per will that states the she is the sole beneficiary.
Therefore, Janet sister has a right in the property because the will has been considered in eyes

PROPERTY LAW 2
of law legal because it is in written. Jason right will not been considered because the trust can
be created with fraud, misrepresentations and threat (Armfield, 2015).
Jason does not have any legal interest in relation to the law. Jason right will not occur
because will states that Janet sister is the sole beneficiary of the property. As per law that
states assets that has left in a ‘will’ go through in accordance with the will. The Assets that
have been promised in living will not go through in accordance with that it is not in writing.
The beneficiary will always be the person whose name in the Will and not in accordance with
the trust.
Will has been made after marrying Jason
If the will has been made by the Janet after marrying Jason than it can be said that Jason has
no rights in the property because as per the principle states that interest arises when there is
no will. The trust that has been created was verbal and it was nowhere written that Jason has
the equitable interest in the property (Hudson, 2017). It clearly states that Jason has no right
in the property. The will in the eyes of law considered valid and bee prioritise above resulting
trust and consecutive trust. The intention is an important factor of trust and the will states that
there was no intention to give the beneficial right of the property to Jason. In Lambe v
Eames states that the words alone cannot create the trust and the intention also matters and
the court held that there was no intention on the part of the plaintiff and it concludes that
there is no trust (Douglas, 2017).
The facts in the case study that creates the trust between the Jason and Janet but as
established in the case Lambe v Eames (1870) L. R. 10 Eq. 267 the words are alone not
sufficient to prove the trust and the will creates is the valid document that states Janet is the
sole beneficiary of the property.
Do Jason has any equitable interest
An equitable interest has been made that that there has been made by virtue of an equitable
title. The equitable interest has been defined as the right in equity that is protected by an
equitable remedy. Equity has been defined by the judges that have been determined that what
is fair and then the decision has been made the decision as opposed to deciding what is legal.

PROPERTY LAW 3
In the case of Gissing v Gissing [1971] AC 886 House of Lords case, the case of equitable
trust where husband and wife has been divorced after 31 years of marriage. The maximum
purchase amount was on loan and instalments have been paid by Mr Gissing from his own
money. Mr Gissing has also given allowance to her and therefore the court held that Mr
Gissing is solely the owner of the property and Mrs Gissing has no beneficial interest in the
property (Evans, 2015). There was nowhere has provided the assurance that have the
intention of the beneficial interest in the property.
Mr Jason who is living with her wife Janet and as it was told by Janet that house belongs to
both that much it belongs to her. She had also promised Jason that he has not to worry about
his future. Janet had also invested some money in the property as the facts have provided him
assurance in the property.
Therefore, Janet has the right of equitable interest in the property because when the equitable
interest has been made than there is also the right of the property. In Gissing v Gissing case
where the property there was no common intention and it has not been given beneficiary
interest in the property rights. There was a common intention by Jason and Janet of
transferring the property (Adamo, Klodawsky, Aubry, Hwang & Gogosis, 2018).
It can say that Mr Jason has equitable interest in the property but the principle in the case but
the principle of equitable interest cannot been allowed as per the legal terms the beneficiary
of the property is Miss Janet. It can be said that Mr Jason will not get the equitable interest.
However, he can demand for the damages from the Court.
Type of Remedies Jason have
The remedies that is available to Jason that firstly he has the equitable right in the property as
the there was a trust between the Janet and Jason that the property belongs to him and
therefore he has done minor changes in his house. He has no idea about the Will that has been
made by the Janet for her sister. The will has no legal validity because it has been made
before marriage and therefore interest has been changed. In Goodman v Gallant [1986] Fam
106 Court of Appeal case, Mrs Goodman has 50% beneficial interest in the matrimonial
home. The legal title has been held by her husband. Her husband has left the home and she
has made the relationship with the other person and after years they has taken (Bently, &
Sherman, 2014).

PROPERTY LAW 4
Therefore, Jason has an equal right in the property that the Janet sister have and he can
demand the equal rights in the property. He can also want title based on trust that has been
maintained between the parties.
Secondly, he can claim for property estoppels and he has the right in the property in epical
connection with the English Land Law that he has the right to use the property of the owner
that can be effective in connection with disputed transfer of property. The estoppels right
appear if someone gives a clear assurance that he has a right over a property. He has relied on
that assurance (Handley, 2016). He has therefore acted on that assurance. It will be
unconscionable to again to go back on the assurance. In Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ
159 case, the plaintiff was used to take care of the defendant till his death. He has been
promised for the property but he has not been paid anything and therefore court has awarded
him with £200,000. The court states that the amount has been paid to plaintiff as per the
expectation he has from the defendant (Campa, Ryan & Menter, 2016).
The facts states that Janet had given a clear assurance to Jason that they both have equal
rights in the property as much rights she holds in the property. Therefore, Jason had relied on
her assurance and had made minor changes in the property. It will be unconscionable to back
on the assurance so it will become difficult for him to back on the assurance. The application
of Jennings v Rice states that Jason has the right to demand remedies for the promise that has
been made by (Janet Bow & Field, 2016).
Thirdly, Jason can demand remedies for resulting trust. The creation of an implied trust by
operation of law that property is transferred to someone who does not pays anything for
property. Jason has the resulting trust in the property as the facts states.
Lastly, the consecutive trust states that a property that has been holds by a person or in
possession under the circumstances that he is holding for another, even though there is no
formal trust agreement or document. Therefore, Jason can ask for the remedies for the
consecutive trust that has been created by Jason and Janet.
Conclusion
It has been analyzed that Jason does not have any legal interest in the property. As per laws,
Janet sister is the sole beneficiary of the property and not Jason. The will creates the right of
Janet in the property as the words alone cannot make anyone trust in the property. However

PROPERTY LAW 5
the facts states that the Jason has equitable interest in the property but will not create the legal
interest. However, Jason can demand various remedies from the Court. The remedies like the
trust that has been created between him and Janet that creates the right of him in the property.
It has been analyzed that Jason can seek remedies for the properties estoppels and the rights
in the property. In conclusion, from the case laws that Jason does not have legal rights in the
property, as there was no certain evidence to prove by Jason that he holds right in the
property.

PROPERTY LAW 6
References
Adamo, A., Klodawsky, F., Aubry, T., Hwang, S., & Gogosis, E. (2018). Contributing to
More Equitable and Inclusive Cities?. Toward Equity and Inclusion in Cities: Lessons
from Critical Praxis-Oriented Research, 8, 235.
Armfield, J. (2015). Equitable Claims and Family Provision. Elder L. Rev., 9, 1.
Bently, L., & Sherman, B. (2014). property law. USA : Oxford University Press.
Bow, M., & Field, L. (2016). Proprietary estoppel and the risks of mixing family and
business. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, 84 (25)
Campa, M., Ryan, C., & Menter, A. (2016). Developing more open and equitable
relationships with industry to improve advancements in clinical research in
dermatology. British Journal of Dermatology, 174(6), 1365-1369.
Douglas, A. (2017). Equitable Priorities under Registered Land. University of Cambridge
Faculty of Law Research Paper, (5).
Evans, S. (2015). A Scrutiny of Powers of Sale Arising Under an Equitable Mortgage; A
Case for Reining These in.
Gissing v Gissing [1971]AC 886 House of Lords case
Handley, K. R. (2016). The Law of Proprietary Estoppel. By Ben McFarlane [Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2014. xxxiii+ 688 pp. Hardback £ 165.00. ISBN 978-0-199-
69958-2.]. The Cambridge Law Journal, 75(2), 432-434.
Hudson, J. (2017). The price of coherence in estoppels. Sydney L. Rev., 39 (1).
Jennings v Rice [2002] EWCA Civ 159
Korngold, G. (2016). Preface and Introduction to Private Land Use Arrangements:
Easements, Real Covenants and Equitable Servitudes (Juris Publishing 2016).
Lambe v Eames
Martin, P. (2016). Estoppel: Binding promise without a contract: Court of appeal considers
proprietary estoppel. LSJ: Law Society of NSW Journal, (23), 93.

PROPERTY LAW 7
Stack v Dowden [2007] 2 AC 432 case