The Irony Of Property Disputes: Common Intention, Divergent Recollection

Introduction

Property disputes often reveal a striking irony: the parties involved typically assert a shared or common intention at the outset of their dealings, yet when conflict arises, that same intention is recalled in markedly different ways. The judicial task then becomes one of discerning the parties’ true intent from incomplete evidence, past conduct, and retrospective assertions. This dynamic underscores the necessity of precision in recording agreements and highlights the evidential complexities inherent in establishing claims based upon a purported “common intention” within property law.

In a recent case, DOP v DOO [2025] SGHC(A) 21, the High Court and subsequently, the Court of Appeal had to thoroughly analyse the facts and circumstances of the 2 disputing co-owners, to discern what was the parties’ “common intention” at the time of purchase of a condominium flat (“the Property”). The Property was purchased as joint tenants in December 2011 for $1.65m. The appellant’s case was that there was an oral agreement that the parties would beneficially own the Property in proportion to their respective financial contributions  ie, 83.7:16.3 in his favour.  Whereas, the respondent’s case was that the parties beneficially own the Property in equal shares.

The background was succinctly described by the learned Judge in the lower court, in DOO v DOP [2025] SGHC 85 –  the claimant/respondent and the defendant/appellant, both aged 50, were in a romantic relationship from 2005 to 2018 and cohabited from 2006 to 2019. Both are French citizens as well as Singapore Permanent Residents. They moved to Singapore in 2010 and decided to have a family here. Although not married, they have two children born in Singapore in 2012 and 2015, respectively. The Property is the subject of this dispute.

In summary, the appellate court in DOP v DOO [2025] SGHC(A) 21 upheld the lower court’s decision and decided that there was sufficient evidence to establish a common intention between the parties for equal beneficial ownership, rejecting the appellant’s contention of an oral agreement that ownership would be proportionate to their respective financial contributions.

Several key evidence supported this conclusion:

 

1. Acquisition as joint tenants:

• Despite their intention to keep assets separate, the parties purchased the property as joint tenants and used it as a family home, referring to themselves as husband and wife. This, though not conclusive, indicated an intention of equality rather than separation of interests.

2. Joint financial contributions:

• Both parties contributed to the purchase and financing of the property (although not equally) — paying upfront fees, jointly taking a bank loan, and subsequently sharing mortgage payments equally for six years, despite the appellant’s higher income. This pattern of conduct was consistent with an intention of equal ownership.

3. Acknowledgment by the appellant:

• In a 2019 affidavit filed in French proceedings, the appellant stated that the parties had “undivided ownership in an equal manner.” The court rejected his claim that this referred only to equal sharing of household expenses, holding instead that it clearly referred to equal ownership of the property.

4. Respondent’s statements:

• The court dismissed the appellant’s reliance on a statement by the respondent suggesting ownership would “fall back to contribution,” finding that, when read in context, her affidavit and prior correspondence consistently reflected an understanding of equal ownership.

5. Uncertainty of appellant’s alleged oral agreement:

• The alleged oral agreement failed to provide certainty about ownership proportions, as it deferred determination of beneficial interests until full payment of the property in the future.

Accordingly, the appellate court found no reason to overturn the judge’s conclusion that the parties shared a common intention of equal beneficial ownership at the time of acquisition of the Property.

Further, the court affirmed the test from Chan Yuen Lan v See Fong Mun [2014] 3 SLR 1048 at [160] where the Court of Appeal outlined a systematic framework for determining the beneficial ownership of property when the legal title and parties’ financial contributions differ.

The apportionment of beneficial interest in property can be determined by the following steps:

1. Financial Contributions:

• If there is clear evidence of each party’s financial contribution to the purchase price, the beneficial interest is presumed proportional to those contributions (resulting trust).
• If not, it is presumed to follow the legal ownership.

2. Common Intention:

• If there is evidence (express or inferred) that the parties intended a different proportion, that intention governs, regardless of contributions.
• Courts will not impute intentions that did not exist.

3. Fall back to Legal Ownership:

• If neither contributions nor intentions indicate proportions, the beneficial interest follows legal ownership.

4. Gifts:

• If one party paid more but intended to benefit the other with the whole contribution, a gift is presumed, and the other party may receive the entire beneficial interest.

5. Presumption of Advancement:

This may override the resulting trust:

• If property is in one party’s sole name, that party may be entitled outright.
• If jointly owned, the beneficial interest is held jointly.
• If it does not apply, interests follow contributions.

6. Changes After Acquisition:

• If there is later evidence of a change in the parties’ intention regarding proportions, that new intention governs.
• Otherwise, the interests remain as initially determined.

In conclusion, disputes over common intention serve as a reminder that clarity and documentation remain the most effective safeguards against uncertainty in property ownership and beneficial interests. Practical safeguards include: clearly recording the parties’ intentions in writing, using formal agreements rather than informal arrangements, maintaining contemporaneous records of discussions and decisions. These records can prevent much of the costly litigation that arises from what began as a shared understanding, remembered differently.