Revisiting sham trusts: Common intention, estoppel and illegality
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.
Sham Trusts, Illegality
Commercial Law | Estates and Trusts
Conveyancer and Property Lawyer
Sweet and Maxwell
SEE, Alvin W. L..
Revisiting sham trusts: Common intention, estoppel and illegality. (2018). Conveyancer and Property Lawyer. 31-44. Research Collection School Of Law.
Available at: http://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2589