Introduction
When it comes to managing property in Singapore, one legal arrangement that
often comes into focus is the creation of trusts. A trust allows an individual (the
settlor) to transfer legal ownership of a property to a trustee, who then manages it
for the benefit of the beneficiary or beneficiaries. One question that often arises is
often on the duration of how long a property can be held in trust. The answer lies
in understanding Singapore’s legal framework governing trusts, particularly the
legislations on the same and the common law rules of perpetuity.

Rules Against Perpetuities

A fundamental limitation on the duration of trusts in Singapore stems from the
common law rule against perpetuities. This rule exists to prevent property from being tied up indefinitely and ensures that assets remain available for productive use.

Under Section 32 of the Civil Law Act 1909 (Cap. 43), the perpetuity period is
generally 100 years from the date the trust is created. This means a trust must
vest—or transfer beneficial ownership—within this timeframe. Where any trust
deed specifies a perpetuity period that exceeds this duration, the perpetuity period shall still be deemed as 100 years. To avoid this pitfall, a trust deed must be drafted carefully to ensure compliance with this legal requirement.

One exception to the rule on perpetuities is a trust created for charitable purposes. Charitable trusts are not bound by the rule against perpetuities and can exist
indefinitely, provided they serve a public purpose recognized under Singapore law, such as poverty relief, education, or community welfare.

Rule in Saunders v. Vautier

Special considerations apply when a trust is created for minors or for specific
purposes such as education or medical expenses. For example, a trust created
to benefit a minor may extend until the beneficiary reaches the age of majority
(21 years in Singapore) or a specified later age, provided it complies with the 100-
year perpetuity period.

The rule in Saunders v. Vautier is a common law principle that provides beneficiaries
of a trust with the right to terminate the trust and demand the distribution of trust
assets, provided certain conditions are met. This rule applies if:

1. All beneficiaries are of full legal capacity (i.e., they are adults and mentally
   competent).
2. All beneficiaries agree to the termination.

The beneficiaries are absolutely entitled to the trust property (i.e. there are no
contingent or future interests). In Singapore, this rule remains applicable and
can serve as an important tool for beneficiaries seeking greater control over trust
assets. However, its application depends on the trust’s structure and terms. For
example, discretionary trusts where the trustee has the power to determine how
and when beneficiaries receive trust property, may not always allow the rule’s
application due to the lack of absolute entitlement. Additionally, the trust deed
may include provisions that override or limit the beneficiaries’ ability to invoke the
rule. Trust drafters often include such clauses to ensure the settlor’s intentions are
preserved.

Recent Court Case

The following case underscores the application of the rule in Saunders v. Vautier in Singapore and provides guidance on assessing allegations of sham trusts and the
illegality defense within trust law.

In the case of Lau Sheng Jan Alistair v. Lau Cheok Joo Richard and another [2023] SGHC 196, the applicant, Mr. Lau Sheng Jan Alistair, sought to terminate an
irrevocable trust established by his parents over a property valued at S$4.925 million. He aimed to have the property’s title transferred to him, asserting his rights as the
sole beneficiary under the rule in Saunders v. Vautier, which allows a sole beneficiary of full age and capacity to terminate a trust.

The application was supported by his mother, the second respondent, but opposed
by his father, the first respondent. The father contended that the trust was a sham,
alleging it was created to evade the payment of Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty
(ABSD) and should therefore be deemed invalid.

The Singapore High Court examined whether the trust was genuine or a sham
intended for tax avoidance. The court concluded that the trust was valid and not
a sham, determining that the applicant, as the sole beneficiary of full age and
capacity, was entitled to terminate the trust and have the property transferred to
him. The court also clarified the legal test for the doctrine of illegality in the context
of trusts, rejecting the formal reliance test and emphasizing a substantive approach
to assessing illegality.

Revocable vs. Irrevocable Trusts  

The duration of a trust can also depend on whether it is revocable or irrevocable.
A revocable trust allows the settlor to retain control and make changes to the trust terms, including its duration. In contrast, an irrevocable trust, once established, is
difficult to alter, and its duration will typically adhere strictly to the terms set forth
in the trust deed, subject to the perpetuity rules.

Implications for Conveyancing and Estate Planning            

Understanding the limitations on the duration of trusts is crucial in conveyancing
and estate planning. Property developers and investors often use trusts to structure ownership and manage risk, but they must ensure compliance with legal restrictions
to avoid complications. Similarly, individuals creating trusts for estate planning
purposes must align their objectives with the legal rules to ensure the trust’s efficacy.

Failure to consider these limitations can lead to disputes among beneficiaries,
invalidate the trust, or complicate the transfer of property. For example, if a trust’s terms violate the perpetuity period, it may require judicial intervention to rectify or
distribute the trust assets prematurely.

Professional Guidance is Key

Given the complexities surrounding the legal duration of trusts, professional
guidance is indispensable. Lawyers specializing in trusts and conveyancing can
provide tailored advice, ensuring compliance with Singapore’s trust laws and
safeguarding the settlor’s intentions. This is particularly critical in high-value or
multi-jurisdictional trust arrangements, where varying legal systems may intersect.

Conclusion

In Singapore, the duration of a property trust is subject to clear legal rules designed to balance flexibility with practicality. The rule against perpetuities—with its 100-year
limit—serves as a cornerstone in ensuring property is not locked away indefinitely.
Similarly, the rule in Saunders v. Vautier empowers beneficiaries to assert control
over trust assets when conditions are met. Whether you are a settlor, trustee, or
beneficiary, understanding these limitations and seeking expert advice is essential
to maximize the benefits of a trust while adhering to the law. By doing so, you can
create a trust that stands the test of time, serving its intended purpose effectively
and legally.

In the meantime, should you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact us.