Kelvin Low on ‘Property’ as polyseme and its implications for trust ‘property’ (Journal of Equity)

"‘Property’ as polyseme and its implications for trust ‘property’"
Kelvin Low
Journal of Equity, Volume 18, Part 2, pp. 107 - 130
Published: February 2025

Abstract: The trust may be English law’s “greatest and most distinctive achievement … in the field of jurisprudence” but it is likely to also be its most confounding. A fierce debate - often cast in dualistic terms - has raged for more than a century over whether a beneficiary’s interest under a trust is proprietary or obligational. Upon closer examination, some of the disagreements are less substantive and more semantic. At the heart of this debate lies the ambiguity inherent in the meaning of the word “property” itself. Yet, although equitable “property” may not be identical to legal “property” (indeed, tangible legal “property” is fundamentally different from intangible legal “property”), this does not make it any less properly regarded as “property”. Rather than being a mere mimic or metaphor, equitable “property” simply secures exclusive control to a resource in a different, indirect, manner for equitable “owners”. “Property” is a polyseme, where a word has different meanings but those meanings are related so that even though it is different from legal “property”, it is no less truly “property”. The primary objective of this clarification is to serve as a via media to reconcile some of the apparently opposing views that have arisen in this debate. However, it also pushes back against certain revisionist reforms proposed for equitable “property” that fail to acknowledge the fundamentally different nature of equitable "property" to legal "property". The understanding of equitable “property” proposed also carries implications for the English Law Commission's conception of digital assets as third things that supposedly carry no rights until they are interfered with.

The paper is also available on SSRN, please click here. 

Kelvin Low and Jeremiah Lau on Reforming the Singapore Trust: Pushing or Breaking Boundaries? (New book chapter)

"Reforming the Singapore Trust: Pushing or Breaking Boundaries?"
Jeremiah Lau and Kelvin Low
Asia-Pacific Trusts Law, Volume 3, Boundaries in Context, Part III, Chapter 13
Hart Publishing
Published online: May 2025

Abstract: This chapter assesses the various enacted and proposed legislative reforms to Singapore’s trust law in the new millennium, including the Business Trusts Act, the Trust Companies Act and the amendments to the Trustee’s Act. We also consider the recent proposal to introduce non charitable purpose trusts. The tricky process of law reform is an interesting setting in which to consider various ‘boundary problems’ in trusts. Can statutory reform refine or sharpen the unclear boundaries of a judge-made trust law rule? To what extent can the conceptual boundaries of the English trust be modified by statute? Do these reforms push the boundaries of the trust to better adapt it to modern circumstances? Or do they threaten to break the institution of the trust altogether?

Full text of this chapter is available on SSRN, please click here.

Kelvin Low and Peter Watts on The Case for Cryptoassets as Property (New book chapter)

"The Case for Cryptoassets as Property"
Peter Watts, Kelvin Low
in Law at the Cutting Edge: Essays in Honour of Sarah Worthington, edited by Sinéad Agnew and Marcus Smith (Bloomsbury Publishing, April 2024), Chapter 14, pp. 281 - 299

Abstract: Cryptoassets, introduced in the wake of the Great Recession (2007-2009), have proven to be very divisive. Embraced by some as part of a revolutionary future, they are derided by others as the misconceived fever dream of naïve technologists who don’t understand how the real world works. Despite a recent meltdown in the cryptoasset markets, or perhaps because of it, the courts will increasingly have to resolve disputes over cryptoassets. An important question that has dramatic implications on how such disputes are resolved is, “Should cryptoassets be considered property?” In this bifurcated contribution, two contrasting positions are taken. “The Case for Cryptoassets as Property” presents the case for classifying cryptoassets as property, arguing that it greatly simplifies dispute resolution. “Better Left to the Legislature?”, on the other hand, disputes the capacity of the courts to do so. It is our shared hope that, through this adversarial process, we shine a clearer light on the arguments that judges and other lawmakers ought to consider as they face the coming deluge of disputes.

Please click here to read the book chapter on SSRN.

HKU Law Welcomes Prof. Kelvin F.K. Low

Welcome to Prof. Kelvin F.K. Low, who joins the Faculty of Law as a Professor. 

Kelvin read law at the National University of Singapore and Oxford University. Before his current appointment at the University of Hong Kong, he held previous appointments at National University of Singapore, Singapore Management University, and City University of Hong Kong. 

Kelvin's research interest spans the field of private law but with a particular interest in property, broadly defined. He has published internationally with leading journals such as the American Journal of Comparative Law, the International & Comparative Law Quarterly, Legal Studies, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, the Law Quarterly Review, the Melbourne University Law Review, and the Modern Law Review. He is a co-author (together with Michael Bridge, Louise Gullifer, and Gerard McMeel) of the 2nd and 3rd editions of The Law of Personal Property, and co-author (together with Tang Hang Wu) of the 3rd and 4th editions of Tan Sook Yee’s Principles of Singapore Land Law. His works have been cited by the courts in Australia, Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong SAR, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Singapore as well as law commissions and law reform bodies in Australia, England and Wales, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and Singapore.