Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LAND LAW – TRUST – WHEN TIME AND TRUST RUN OUT – PROPERTY OWNERSHIP DISPUTES AND THE DOCTRINE OF LACHES

Illustrative Scenario

X and Y are siblings. In 1980, their father started a sundry shop business and used the earnings to purchase a piece of land, which was registered in their mother’s name for plantation purposes. X worked at the sundry shop for six years without receiving any salary. As a result, the mother transferred the property to X in 1990. Despite owning the land, X chose to share the plantation income equally with Y, as times were tough and he did not want to deprive his sibling of this income. X alone covered all the quit rent and other expenses related to the land. Both parents passed away in 2000 without leaving a will. In 2013, Y initiated legal action against X, seeking a declaration that X holds the land in trust for both siblings.

The core issue is whether Y can successfully claim that X holds the land on trust for both of them, meaning the land should not belong to X alone.

Legal Principles & Laws

  • Section 344 of the National Land Code (NLC): Mandates that any trust must be recorded in the memorial of registration to be recognized.
  • Three Certainties of Trust: For a trust to be legally valid, it must satisfy three certainties: certainty of words, certainty of subject, and certainty of object.
  • Trust and Land Title: If a land title does not explicitly state that a trust exists, with the trustee’s name mentioned, the registered owner on the title holds the land absolutely, without any obligation to another party not named on the title.
  • Doctrine of Laches: If there is an unreasonable delay in asserting a claim or interest over a property, the court may conclude that the doctrine of laches applies, thereby defeating the claim.

Application to the Scenario

  • In this scenario, there is no mention in the memorial of registration that X holds the land in trust for the siblings. Additionally, there is no written document or trust deed indicating the existence of a trust. Consequently, the court is likely to rule that X does not hold the land on behalf of the siblings. Moreover, the significant delay of over 10 years by Y in asserting his claim further strengthens the likelihood that the court will dismiss Y’s claim based on the doctrine of laches.

Reference Cases

  • Low Tin Yong @ Low Yong Lian v. Low Yong Thuan [2016] 3 MLJ 351
  • Alfred Templeton & Ors v. Low Yat Holdings Sdn Bhd & Anor [1989] 2 MLJ 202; [1989] 1 CLJ Rep 219
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us