Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

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
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