Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

WILL – SECRET TRUST

Q: I intend to give away one of my properties to my favourite child who took care of me when I am sick. I do not want this to be revealed in my will. What can I do?
A: You may sign a secret trust to give away that property of yours to your favourite son upon your death.

Q: How does a secret trust work?
A: A will is a public document open to scrutiny. Under a secret trust arrangement, you may leave the property to a trustee in the will. The trustee will hold the property via a separate secret trust for the benefit of the intended recipient.

For example, A has 3 sons, i.e. X, Y and Z. A wants to keep it a secret who his property in Mont Kiara will be given to in his will. Instead of stipulating either X, Y or Z will be the beneficiary under the will, A will bequeath his property in Mont Kiara to B. B will then hold the property in Mont Kiara under a separate secret trust to Z, the favourite son. The name of the favourite son Z will not be revealed in the will.

Q: Is secret trust valid in Malaysia?
A: Secret trust is valid in Malaysia. There is no contradiction between the doctrine of secret trusts and the Wills Act 1959. A secret trust provides a degree of privacy in the final disposal of the testator’s will. A secret trust is made outside and independently of the will. There is an independent obligation accepted by the trustee under a secret trust. A secret trust operates outside the formalities of the Will Act 1959. A secret trust protects and respects the testamentary freedom of the testator.

Sorotan Terkini

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 »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami