Land Law And Conveyance: A Case Study On Property Law In Singapore

Issue

Discuss about the Land Law and Conveyance.

The present case is based on the property law of Singapore (Bridge, 2015). The brief fact of the case is John is a businessperson who had taken certain loan from a bank. The loan was secured in nature and he mortgaged his own house as against the said loan. He had not obtained any permission from his wife and she did not even know about the loan. There was a downsize happened and John failed to repay the loan to the bank and fled away. 

The issue is whether Jane has any legal right on her husband’s property or not (Westendorp, 2015). The second issue arises regarding the bank’s right in respect of the mortgaged property. Third issue arose regarding the question whether the bank can exercise its duty if Jane had consented on the mortgaged issue (Pow, 2017).

The present case is based on the Conveyance and Property Law of Singapore (Wiener, 2015). In Singapore, the property law is a part of the Commercial law section. The main concept of the commercial law in Singapore is derived its origin from the English law. Therefore, the doctrines of English law are applied on the real estate and other property law in Singapore (Paul & Chui, 2014). There are certain kinds of legal statutes that are applied on this case. The Acts can be categorised as Land Acquisition Act 1966, Land Titles Act, Housing and Development Act and Conveyance and Law of Property Act 1994 (Mugambwa, 2015).

Chapter 61 of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act deals with the provision of the present case. Section 2 of the said Act interpret certain terms of which the term mortgage and property has been prescribed in a systematic way (Duncan et al., 2014). The right of the mortgagee and the kinds of the property has been mentioned here. Part 4 of the Conveyance and Property Act discussed with the topic mortgage (Zhang, & Ye, 2017). Certain obligations has been prescribed here and that was mentioned under section 19.

It has been observed in this case that John had taken one loan from the bank regarding his business. The law that regulates the loan in Singapore is known as Law of Credit and Security (Liu, 2016). It has been mentioned that the creditor who mortgaged certain things, whether it is a real property or personal one, should hand over to the bank in case of non-repayment of the loan (Bastiaensen et al., 2013). The main issue arose in this case is about wife’s right over the property owned by her husband. In Singapore, the rights of the women are secured by way of a charter known as the women’s charter (Lye & Tan, 2015). Certain rights have been prescribed here that provide security to the women in various dimensions.

Relevant Rules

Another relevant rule applicable in this case is the rule regarding proprietary estoppels (Thomas, 2014). Proprietary estoppels are a doctrine that is a part of the English law. It assures certain rights to a person over a particular schedule of property. In Pascoe v. Turner [1979] 1 WLR 431, it was held by the English Court of Appeal that if anyone is warranted with a promise that he or she will get some right over a specific property, it is their right to acquire the property on that basis. The same rule had been applied on the case of Inwards v. Baker [1965] 2 QB 29. In Singapore, the doctrine of Proprietary Estoppels has been engraved under chapter 18 of the Commercial Law headed as Equity and Trusts (Chan, Kwan & Young, 2014).

This case has reflected certain provision that was pre-decided in a case of Burns v. Burns [1984] Ch 317. It was held in that case that financial contributions are sometimes lead towards the acquiring of the property. It is even a leading point that there is any housing contribution by the party or not. These can be beneficial entitlement in respect of the property.

There are certain rules and principles are applied in the case that is primarily discussed in the above named section. The first section attracts the provision of the Commercial law of Singapore (Chen & Deng, 2013).

In the year 1886, the Act regarding the Conveyance and property Law has been enacted in Singapore for the purpose of clarify certain provision of the land related problems. Section 2 of the said Act has prescribed certain terms that are exactly a part of the following case law. In this case, provision regarding the mortgage has been discussed. The term mortgage has been defined as a property that is acted as a security for any kind of loan. Here, it can be stated that John mortgaged his property in respect of a secured loan to the bank. Here, John is the mortgagor and that bank is the mortgagee. In case of non-payment of the loan, the mortgagee has the right to acquire the property of the mortgagor.

The dilemma arose with the wife of John. The apartment was owned by John and he told to his wife that she should not worried about her future as the apartment is owned by him and he is the sole owner of the property. After hearing this, Jane, wife of John, used to do the household work in the absence of her husband. That proposal made by john is known as the proprietary estoppels in legal language. In Ramsden v Ramsden [1866] LR 1 HL 129, it has been observed that if any tenant, with the consent of the landlord, invest any labour or money in the property, he will get benefit under the law on equity and get some interest over  the property. The commercial law of Singapore is discussing with the chapter that is particularly mentioned in chapter 18 of the said Act. It is a claim that takes place in following situation:

• In such circumstances, when a person promise someone to provide right over a specific schedule of property.
• The person, to whom the promise has been made, relied on the statement.
• When the person started to do some work in respect of the property by holding the promised property as their own.

Application

In such atmosphere, the court can transfer the right over the property to the claimant if there is any reasonable ground prescribed by the claimant. However, this is a discretionary power of the court to grant such order. It is a way of transfer of ownership regarding a property.

In this case, John told to his wife that her future is secured as this house is his sole property. It is a fact that John had taken certain loan from a bank and kept his house as a security, without obtaining any consent from his wife. Therefore, Jane was unaware of the fact and believed that the house is her own. According to the law, the provisions of proprietary estoppels are applicable here as it fulfilled all the essentials. Jane can sue before the court and claim for the legal right that she gained by her husband. In the absence of any written documents, it will be tough for her to gain the order from the court. However, in certain cases, the court had pronounced its judgment regarding the issue in favour of the claimant.

The provision of license will be applied in this case. The origin of such law in Singapore is feudal in nature. This is a fact that in this case, Jane has acquired certain rights in respect of the property of her husband. It is a fact that her husband who did not acquire any suggestion from her has mortgaged the property. In this case, it has been observed that Jane was not a tenant. She can be stated as a lodger. It was decided in Mehta v Royal Bank of Scotland, QBD 25 Jan 1999 that a lodger can be applied for licence and can get the benefit regarding the property. If there is no express provision that the occupier is a tenant, then it will be presumed that he is a licensee.

The central pivot of the case is the legal right of Jane as against the property of her husband. In Singapore, the rights of the women are secured through certain Acts and regulation. There is a charter regarding the same that is known as Women’s Charter. Many rights are prescribed here that a Singaporean women acquired as per law. Among other rights, one is that the wife is not responsible for the debt of her husband. In this case, it can be observed that John had taken certain debt from a bank for the development of his business (Molloy & Graham, 2014). However, John was unable to gain profit from the business and without repay the same, fled away. The banking authority could not claim from Jane for the repayment of the loan at any time as the charter secures the right.

The provision of the case also attracts the provision of the Trust law and confers light on the equitable interest. In Laskar v Laskar [2008] 2 FLR 589, it has been stated that if a person made no contribution regarding the purchase of a house but somehow employed labour in the house, can entitled to acquire equitable interest from the property. There is an exception regarding the application of the provision that it is applied to the home only. Therefore, the provision of the case law is applicable in this case.

The case is also the provision of promissory estoppels regarding the same. The principle of the same is laid down under the case Hughes v Metropolitan Railway Co. [1876] LR 2 App Cas 439 that if in a legal relationship, a person promised to do certain thing to his or her spouse, and if that spouse relied on the same, the spouse will get equitable interest over the promise.

The bank here is supposed to get the property of John who had failed to repay the loan to the bank. There are certain other provisions regarding the same. Under the Commercial law of Singapore, there are certain provisions regarding the credit and security. This law deals with the financial provision that reflects the provision of credit and security. The word credit can be defined as an exchange of money in lieu of certain promise. The word credit is applied in case of loan. The word security can be termed as an asset that can be acquired by the creditor as a form of security that guarantees the payment of the creditor. This process is quite similar to the system of pawn. Security can be of two types- real security and personal security. Real security is related to the landed property including the building. Personal security consists of the car etc. In this case, John had taken the loan by secured his apartment.

In case, if John obtained permission from Jane regarding the loan, the application of law will be different. In that case, the right to claim the possession regarding the property of John as she herself gave the consent regarding the loan will not provide Jane. It is not possible to her to assume what will be the fate of the business. However, consent provides the indication regarding the waiver of rights. She should know the fact about the consequence of non-payment. However, the bank personnel could not claim money from her as per the relevant portion of the Women’s Charter.

Conclusion:

Therefore, from the above mentioned discussion, it can be concluded that Jane has the legal right of proprietary estoppels that can be exercised upon the possession of her husband’s property. There are ample rights given to the women in Singapore. Though the burden of proof is lying on her to prove the case as there is no written documents that can show that her husband give the share of the property to her (Machi & McEvoy, 2016). However, nature of the case has attracted the provision of the said doctrine. Jane is not liable to pay the debt taken by her husband from the said bank. In Singapore, there is a women’s charter that provides certain guidelines regarding the rights of the women. There is a clear provision, which stated that women are not liable for the debt taken by their husband. Therefore, the same rule will be  applicable here and Jane will be secured from any extra pressure for repay the loan. However, if Jane had given her consent over the loan issue and if she had an idea about the consequence of the non-repayment of the loan, she could not be able to claim the proprietary right over the property that was mortgaged by her husband. According to the provision of the Conveyance and Property Law of Singapore, if the mortgagor fails to repay the loan amount to the mortgagee, then mortgagee will acquire entire right over the mortgaged property.

References:.

Bastiaensen, J., Marchetti, P., Mendoza, R., & Pérez, F. (2013). After the Nicaraguan Non?Payment Crisis: Alternatives to Microfinance Narcissism. Development and Change, 44(4), 861-885.

Bridge, M. (2015). Personal property law. OUP Oxford.

Chan, R. S., Kwan, V., & Young, A. (2014). Should Hong Kong follow the experience of Singapore in developing its business trust regime?. International Company and Commercial Law Review, 25(9), 302-308.

Chen, J., & Deng, Y. (2013). Commercial mortgage workout strategy and conditional default probability: Evidence from special serviced CMBS loans. The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 46(4), 609-632.

Duncan, W. D., Christensen, S. A., Dixon, W. M., Rivera, R., & Window, M. (2014). Issues Paper 2–Lot entitlements under the Body Corporate and Community Management Act 1997.

Liu, X. (2016). Countermeasures for Maintaining Security of the Cultural Industry. In Proceedings of 2015 2nd International Conference on Industrial Economics System and Industrial Security Engineering (pp. 285-291). Springer, Singapore.

Lye, K. C., & Tan, E. (2015). Gay Marriage and the Common Law Conflict of Laws Rules: A Singapore Perspective. Hong Kong LJ, 45, 693.

Machi, L. A., & McEvoy, B. T. (2016). The literature review: Six steps to success. Corwin Press.                    

Molloy, T., & Graham, T. (2014). Does the Trust fail to bring happiness to the rich because it was invented to manage poverty? Dangerous trust pitfalls, and—as yet—inadequate trust legislation, in the PRC. Singapore’s express, resulting, remedial constructive, and Quistclose trusts; its admirable consideration of trust creditor rights; and its regrettable abolition of perpetuity and accumulation periods. Equitable remedies and conflict of law principles in Hong Kong. Taiwanese trusts.

Mugambwa, J. (2015). Proposal for compulsory land acquisition for economic investment in Uganda. Australasian Review of African Studies, The, 36(1), 98.

Paul, G., & Chui, P. (2014). History and current status of forensic science in Singapore. In The Global Practice of Forensic Science (pp. 231-239). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Pow, C. P. (2017). Courting the ‘rich and restless’: Globalisation of real estate and the new spatial fixities of the super-rich in Singapore. International Journal of Housing Policy, 17(1), 56-74.

Thomas, S. B. (2014). Proprietary Estoppel and Common Intention Constructive Trusts: Is It Time to Abandon the Distinction. Sing. J. Legal Stud., 168.

Westendorp, I. (2015). Personal Status Law and Women's Right to Equality in Law and in Practice: The Case of Land Rights of Balinese Hindu Women. Journal of Human Rights Practice, 7(3), 430-450.

Wiener, T. M. (2015). Singapore Court Upholds High Court Ruling in Liquidator's Favor. American Bankruptcy Institute Journal, 34(6), 30.

Zhang, X., & Ye, Y. (2017). The Impact of Urbanization on Farmland: Is Division of Right to Contracted Management of Land a Reasonable Way Out?. In Proceedings of the 20th International Symposium on Advancement of Construction Management and Real Estate (pp. 229-240). Springer, Singapore.