Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 167 views

    Question 1

    Uploaded by

    Ummu Solihah
    This document discusses the case of Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors Singapore [1993] regarding the transfer of property from a son or daughter to their mother and father. It notes that whether a presumption of advancement arises depends on the intention of the transferor. If the intention was for the grantee to take beneficial interest, a presumed resulting trust would not arise. The case found that the respondent intended for his mother to take the property absolutely when he transferred his half share, and accepted payment of $20,000 in full satisfaction, so no resulting trust arose in favor of the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Question 1

    Uploaded by

    Ummu Solihah
    167 views2 pages
    This document discusses the case of Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors Singapore [1993] regarding the transfer of property from a son or daughter to their mother and father. It notes that whether a presumption of advancement arises depends on the intention of the transferor. If the intention was for the grantee to take beneficial interest, a presumed resulting trust would not arise. The case found that the respondent intended for his mother to take the property absolutely when he transferred his half share, and accepted payment of $20,000 in full satisfaction, so no resulting trust arose in favor of the respondent.

    Original Description:

    HJHJ

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This document discusses the case of Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors Singapore [1993] regarding the transfer of property from a son or daughter to their mother and father. It notes that whether a presumption of advancement arises depends on the intention of the transferor. If the intention was for the grantee to take beneficial interest, a presumed resulting trust would not arise. The case found that the respondent intended for his mother to take the property absolutely when he transferred his half share, and accepted payment of $20,000 in full satisfaction, so no resulting trust arose in favor of the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    167 views2 pages

    Question 1

    Uploaded by

    Ummu Solihah
    This document discusses the case of Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors Singapore [1993] regarding the transfer of property from a son or daughter to their mother and father. It notes that whether a presumption of advancement arises depends on the intention of the transferor. If the intention was for the grantee to take beneficial interest, a presumed resulting trust would not arise. The case found that the respondent intended for his mother to take the property absolutely when he transferred his half share, and accepted payment of $20,000 in full satisfaction, so no resulting trust arose in favor of the respondent.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    You are on page 1of 2

    Question8: What happens where the son or daughter transfers

    property to the mother and father? Whether the issue raises the
    question of presumption of advancement? Discuss this issue in
    the light of the case Tiah Juan Kim v Goh Swee Fang & Ors
    Singapore [1993]

    It is depend on the intention of the transferor. Where the intention


    was not expressed or known, the law presumes a resulting trust in
    favour of the transferor or grantor. If it has been ascertained that
    the transferor or grantor intended that the grantee should not take
    beneficial interest, then presumed resulting trust would arise.

    This matter was stated very succinctly by Lord Upjohn in Vandervell


    v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1967] 2 AC 291 at 312; [1967] 1
    All ER 1: ...
    Where A transfers property to B otherwise than for valuable
    consideration it is a question of the intention of A in making the
    transfer whether B was to take beneficially or on trust and, if the
    latter, on what trusts. If, as a matter of construction of the
    document transferring the legal estate, it is possible to discern A's
    intentions, that is an end of the matter and no extraneous evidence
    is admissible to correct and qualify his intentions so ascertained.

    But if, as in this case (a common form share transfer), the document
    is silent, then there is said to arise a resulting trust in favour of A.
    But this is only a presumption and is easily rebutted. All the relevant
    facts and circumstances can be considered in order to ascertain A's
    intentions with a view to rebutting this presumption.

    18
    If we may respectfully paraphrase the words of Lord Upjohn, in
    cases where the intention of the transferor or guarantor at the time
    of the transfer can be ascertained from the documents, then no
    question of any presumption of resulting trust would arise.

    The question is not one of the automatic consequences of a


    dispositive failure by A, but one of presumption: the property has
    been carried to B, and from the absence of consideration and any
    presumption of advancement B is presumed not only to hold the
    entire interest on trust, but also to hold the beneficial interest for A
    absolutely.

    The respondent's intention at the time of the transfer was that the first appellant
    takes the property absolutely for a stated consideration of $20,000 and there
    was no intention on his part to retain his half share. In the circumstances, there
    was no room for any presumption of resulting trust and no resulting trust of the
    half share in favour of the respondent arose: at [19].. On these facts, counsel
    submitted that the correct analysis was that there was an effective contract
    contained in or evidenced by the transfer and that the contract was enforceable.
    In consequence no question of resulting trust arose.

    clearly the respondent agreed to the transaction; his intention was to transfer
    his undivided half share in the property for the sum of $20,000, being then the
    estimated market value of his half share. The nature of the transaction was one
    of contract for valuable consideration which he had agreed. Therefore, at the
    time of the transfer, the intention of the respondent was that his mother was to
    take the property absolutely and there was no intention on his part to retain his
    half share; he was prepared to accept the sum of $20,000 in full satisfaction of
    his half share. In these circumstances, there was no room for any presumption of
    resulting trust arising, and, in our judgment, no resulting trust of the half share in
    favour of the respondent arose.

    You might also like

    pFad - Phonifier reborn

    Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

    Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


    Alternative Proxies:

    Alternative Proxy

    pFad Proxy

    pFad v3 Proxy

    pFad v4 Proxy