IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/lawfam/v38y2024i1pebae012..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Broken kinship: family property disputes and the common intention constructive trust in Singapore

Author

Listed:
  • Hang Wu Tang

Abstract

There has been a proliferation of common intention constructive trust claims in Singapore. The main reason is that families have acquired real estate using their collective earning power without explicitly considering the individual entitlement of each family member. When a dispute arises, the claim is often pleaded as a common intention constructive trust. The complication with applying the law on the common intention constructive trust is that this is an English doctrine developed to deal with a different social context ie the breakdown of the relationship between cohabiting couples. In Singapore, the common intention constructive trust applies primarily in a different situation namely in the breakdown of kinship between parents and offspring or between siblings. These relationships are often difficult to unpack because they are imbued with informal familial and cultural norms. Doctrinal complexity is also presented since the common intention constructive trust is often pleaded together with other doctrines such as resulting trusts and gifts. This article proposes that it is time to take Occam’s razor to the often cited six-step framework in Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun to a simplified three-stage analysis.

Suggested Citation

  • Hang Wu Tang, 2024. "Broken kinship: family property disputes and the common intention constructive trust in Singapore," International Journal of Law, Oxford University Press, vol. 38(1), pages 1-012..
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:38:y:2024:i:1:p:ebae012.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/lawfam/ebae012
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:lawfam:v:38:y:2024:i:1:p:ebae012.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/lawfam .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.