Question 1

Case of Lau Siew Kim

Case of Chan Yuen Lan
Case of Su Emmanuel
1. Aim of advising Amisha for the purpose of not severing the joint tenancy. Even if you
are going to sever the joint tenancy, there is the presumption of equity as to the
intention to the shares.
- Leow siu chim they are joint tenants and they are equally advised that equity
has no place to come in. whether they were advised and they knew the
consequences. Not clear on whether they were advised, if she was advised this
is the outcome, if she wasnt advised then the outcome is that.
- Broery used $50,000 from CPF
- Rest of purchase price came a loan from SBD bank - $950,000.
o How to decide their interest from mortgage governing case Su
Emmanuel
Step 1 ascertain their interest common understanding of the
parties as to the repayment of the mortgage. If Broery was
unemployed, the common understanding would be for Amisha to
pay all the mortgage.
Step 2 - Mortgage was taken out under both their names and
Amisha to pay all the mortgage, the loan amount would be
Amishas contribution. Do not add interest because the common
understanding crystallised at the point of purchase presumption
of the resulting trust.
Percentage is 5% to 95%
Default rule lack of evidence equity is equality split the
mortgage payment into half.
Percentage is 52.5% to 47.5%
If dont sell the property there is no equitable accounting.
E.g. intention was for Amisha to pay the loan entirely
percentage is 5% 95%, assume B paid for everything in
the end. Sale price is 2million. A would have to pay B
$950,000, and B gets 5% of the sale price.
Joint tenants can go to court to ask for sale of property.
Mortgage repayments and unequal payments for
purchase price EXAM
When 2 joint tenants are fighting over the sale of the
property, then equitable accounting will apply.
o Look at common intention trust as well.
- Mac
o Doctrine for Mac
Proprietory estoppel
Equitable remedy
Hong Leong Finance case page 170-171 of reading list.
(READ THEM FOR EXAM LIKE TO TEST)
3 elements upon showing the 3 elements, the claimant
has a remedy in equity. Some form of rights in the land
o (1) Representation/assurance
 Silent can amount to representation when
there is a duty to speak.
Certain established relationship
o (2) Reliance
o (3) Detriment
o The court will do the minimum necessary to satisfy
the equity bearing in mind the balance to achieve
justice
Can do almost anything
Interest in land for all time to come.
Can protect
A sum of money for what you
actually lost.
Lord Milet because of the
assurances of the nature of the
parties, they almost reach a
conclusive sort of bargain, the court
will protect the expectation loss.
o If not so strong give
reliance loss.
Andy Lo case
o When you have a hdb flat,
proprietary estoppel will arise
because you can always
order a sum of money.
o Unconscionability is the overarching enquiry the
corner stone of proprietary estoppel but it is not an
additional element.
o By fulfilling this, there will be an incomplete equity.

First representation Heaven has sent me an angel to help me.

- Can cite some cases
- Maybe more, not too sure.
- Assurance
- Reliance took leave for 2 years to look after Broery full time.
- Detriment missing school for 2 years, can be non detrimental, as he did not pay
rent and enjoyed the benefit of free rent.
- Equity has risen and the court will do the necessary.
Huge row called whore and slut
- Whether court can perfect the equity by letting them to stay together.
- He must come with clean hands he had bad conduct himself can equity still
apply? (look at doctrine of clean hands)
o Whether the conditional equity has been forfeited.

How to perfect the equity?

- Give monetary compensation
- How to compute? Can look at caregiver rates and household chores for 2 years.
However if he did the chores etc. before she said heaven has sent.. because it
was not done in reliance.
 - Reliance loss instead of expectation loss (expectation loss is e.g someone saying
the other party has 50% in the house)
- Unlikely for judge to have them stay together considering the circumstancess
o What he lost for 2 years offset the fact that he was living there rent-free.
o Or to order Amisha to pay back the rent he paid so far.
- Hong Leong case silence can give rise to representation when there is a duty to
speak, it would depend on the r/s.
Andy Low case for HDB, proprietary estoppel does not automatically give you an interest
in land, court can perfect equity by giving monetary compensation which is not limited by
HDB regulations.

2.
- Start with definition of lease.
- Case Street
o Gives exclusive possession for a fixed period of certain duration usually in
consideration for payment of rent.
- A case that says:
o Rent may not be necessary.
- Leases gives interest in land but you also have obligatory things to perform.
o Executory rights.
- Tan Su Lin David case
o The nature of a lease determines its character. There is a diff between
long term and short term leases (more of a contract).
- Certainty of fixed period of time duration
o There used to be (lace and chandler) a lease period for the period during
the war, it is not enforceable because it is uncertain when the war will end.
o Ashburn case agreement to rant rent-free occupancy with 3 months
termination notice there is no uncertainty = certain duration. This got
overruled by House of Lords Prudential Assurance case.
It reaffirmed Lace and Chandler.
o Recently been shaken by our Court of Appeal again
YES v Soup Restaurant case
This case doesnt talk about certainty of duration at all and
the court upheld the lease, the clause said that you could
renew the lease at the end of the term and it is considered
a new lease.
Academics said that it is in contrary to Lace and Chandler.
The Court of Appeal didnt even cite any of the cases.
A short term lease should not be subject to all these rigid rules, the
indication that it will not be bound by the certainty of these
principles.
- Exclusive possession
o This part of the doctrine of leases must be present because you cant
have a lease if you dont have exclusive possession.
o Cite correctly all the cases that talks about exclusive possession.
o Because without exclusive possession you are just a licensee.
o Re tan tye
Licensee covenanted that the licensor can at any time inspect the
property
 There is no exclusive possession because the licensor retains
substantial control.
o street and morphert etc
- Airbnb
o It could be a daily tenancy terminable by giving notice periodic tenancy,
it is usually implied. Cannot grant such tenancy.
o In the sharing economy, you pay day by day does that create a periodic
tenancy? if it does, maybe there is no need to reconsider the rules
applying to leases because you already have all these.
- The creation of leases
o Read Tan Shun Kee
o Walsh and Lomdeal
o LTA provisions governing interest.
Leases below 7 years dont have to be registered.
Leases above 7 years have to be registered.
- Remedies for breach
o Distress
o Forfeiture
o Surrender

*Know definition of lease

*Know how to distinguish lease to licenses.
*privity of contract, rights of third parties etc
Look at case of Tan Su Lin David where it talks about differences between short term and
long term leases.
Can talk about certain things like HDB have rules of preventing people in such sharing
economy.
- Whether it is necessary in light of the economy
- Not necessary because of the social consequences.
- HDB 99 years certainty of duration (MUST ENGAGE THIS HALLMARK of
this question)
Read what is a tenancy in sufferance and a periodic tenancy. Tan Suk Kee (read for privity of
contract and privity of estate). If estate is assigned, landlord and assignee will have privity of
estate.
3.
Interest that is created here:
- Equitable mortgage not a legal mortgage.
o Legal mortgage = there is a conveyance to convey the land. The legal
owner of the property becomes the mortgagee.
o Here, there is just an intention to create mortgage Case UNBC
intention is crucial. The intention to create alone does create an equitable
mortgage. Deposit of title = intention to create a mortgage.
2 types of security by possession:
1) Pledge
2) Lien
Penalty clauses for the interest:
- Hong Leong Finance v Tan Gin Hui the court strike it down. In this ques, 30%
on land is too much.
o interest rate were very high, they were not sophisticated people, the court
strike down the interest rate and replaced it with reasonable rate.
o But because they were two old ladies, not very educated.
- Is Yuna in the same position as those ladies?
o Can try to argue that she was desperate for her own career thats why she
took such high interest.
Limitation on the repayment of the loan -> can be seen as a clock on equity of redemption.
Soulless agreement Esso Petroleum, get a collateral benefit, courts may strike this down.
Depends on bargaining power of parties and unconscionability.
- City Corp (READ THIS DISCUSSES ALL OTHER CASES)
o You cannot have a clock on the equity of redemption
o Collateral music projects for the next 20 years
- The idea of this is to protect the equity of redemption which is to protect the
equity of redemption even if you exceed the deadline, the court will usually
extend it.
o It is actually a commercial interest so the court will generously protect it.
- Previously was unconscionability, clocks say unreasonable is fine but general rule
is still unconscionable.
o Unfair or unconscionable
o Penalty???
o Inconsistent with the right to redeem the mortgage, because he gets the
collateral benefit and at the end of the day you cannot redeem it.
- However these cases are really old. If the businessmen nowadays can contract
for these terms, they should be allowed to contract on their own terms. general
mentality of Singapore law nowadays.
- (i) strike down as a clock on the redemption, unless they are business people and
they are advised and still went ahead with agreeing to the clauses.
o But she was desperate,
o Probably wasnt advised since she accepted 30% interest.
- There is a device where the court view them separately although in the same
document it was a different agreement. But with this case, we dont need this
device anymore.
- The interest rate is unconscionability and not unreasonable.
- Slow to apply this doctrine unless it is between sophisticated businessmen e.g
well educated, have legal advice etc.
Can repay mortgage earlier if the contract doesnt state?
- Tan Su Gee
- Strike down the interest then substitute the interest with market rate.
- The only time the redemption is extinguished is foreclosure.
o E.g. if he sells the property.

Duties of a mortgagee upon sale

- Generally no duty to sell.
- Can wait for market to crash and it still wont be in breach of duty of the
mortgagee.
 - There is a case that says that a court might nevertheless order a sale contrary
to the above.
- If mortgagee exercise duty to sell, must:
o Act in good faith
o Duty to obtain true market value (best reasonable price)
Reasonable care that the price achieved can be the best price that
can be reasonable obtained true market price
E.g. one advertisement in Chinese newspaper is it reasonable?
- Might come out in EXAM
- Teo Siew Ha v OCBC case
Cannot redeem upon sale or foreclosure.
If limit right to repay, is like limiting right to redemption.