November 17, 2024

PROPERTY LAW – CLAIMING OWNERSHIP: COURT UPHOLDS LEGAL TITLE AND DISMISSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

Summary and Facts

A (the plaintiff) sought a declaration of proprietary interest in a property in Port Dickson, claiming it was held on constructive trust by B (the first defendant), a former employee. A argued that he had financed the property purchase because B was unable to secure a loan. However, B contended that the funds used to buy the property came from her own earnings, which A had merely managed. C, another party, was also involved in the proceedings.

Legal Issues

Whether A retained a proprietary and beneficial interest in the property, warranting a constructive trust.
Whether B’s actions were unconscionable, thus justifying the imposition of a constructive trust.

Court Findings

The court held that A failed to prove that a constructive trust should be imposed. There was insufficient evidence to support A’s claim of ownership, and no proof of unconscionable conduct by B in acquiring the property. The court emphasized that imposing a constructive trust requires evidence of fraudulent or unconscionable behavior, which was not present in this case.
The court granted B’s counterclaim, ordering the removal of the private caveat filed by A and declaring B as the legal owner. B was awarded nominal damages of RM10,000 to compensate for the hardship caused by the caveat.

Practical Implications

This case emphasizes the need for solid evidence when asserting proprietary claims and highlights that constructive trusts require proof of unfair conduct. For Malaysians, this ruling serves as a reminder that without clear evidence of unjust actions, the court is unlikely to impose a constructive trust. Furthermore, filing a caveat without substantiated claims could lead to damages liability.

Reference Cases

NKS Tharmaseelan a/l NK Sinnadorai v Amaratham a/p Ramiah & Ors [2024] 11 MLJ 141

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.

17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

17 November ,2024 No Comments