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 cas...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | text |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Institutional Knowledge at Singapore Management University
2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/sol_research/2589 https://ink.library.smu.edu.sg/context/sol_research/article/4547/viewcontent/Revisiting_Sham_Trusts.pdf |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Institution: | Singapore Management University |
| Language: | English |
| Summary: | 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. |
|---|