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.

Recent Post

BROAD INTERPRETATION OF ‘SUBSEQUENT MODIFICATION’ APPLIES YORK-ANTWERP RULES 2016 GOVERNING GENERAL AVERAGE IN STAR AXE I LLC V ROYAL & SUN ALLIANCE

In Star Axe I LLC v Royal and Sun Alliance Luxembourg SA [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 342, the court determined that the phrase “any subsequent modification” in the bills of lading extended to the York-Antwerp Rules 2016, not just amendments to the 1994 version. This broad interpretation significantly impacted the general average adjustments, applying the more modern rules outlined in the YAR 2016. The decision emphasize the importance of clear contract language when referring to evolving sets of industry rules, as it directly influences the liabilities and cost-sharing in maritime incidents.

Read More »

COURT UPHOLDS RECAP EMAIL AS BINDING CONTRACT IN MARITIME DISPUTE: PORALU MARINE V MV DIJKSGRACHT

In the recent case of Poralu Marine Australia Pty Ltd v MV Dijksgracht [2023], the Federal Court of Australia Full Court (FCAFC) ruled that a second recap email, summarizing key terms from negotiations, constituted the binding contract of carriage rather than the subsequent booking note. The court found that the recap email reflected the final agreement between the parties, while the booking note attempted to introduce new terms, including liability limits, which were not mutually agreed upon. This decision emphasizes the importance of recap emails in maritime contracts and reinforces the application of the Hague-Visby Rules in such cases.

Read More »

ONE-YEAR TIME BAR FOR MISDELIVERY CLAIMS REINFORCED BY COURT OF APPEAL IN FIMBANK PLC V KCH SHIPPING CO LTD (THE GIANT ACE) [2024]

In the recent decision of the English Court of Appeal in FIMBank plc v KCH Shipping Co Ltd (The Giant Ace) [2024], the court upheld that the one-year time bar under Article III Rule 6 of the Hague-Visby Rules, which are applicable in Malaysia under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1950 (COGSA), applies to all liabilities, including claims for misdelivery of cargo, even when the misdelivery occurs after discharge. The court emphasized the broad application of the phrase “all liability whatsoever in respect of the goods”, confirming that the amended rule was designed to extend the time limit to cover such claims. This ruling underscores the need for timely legal action within the one-year period, reinforcing legal protection for carriers in both the UK and Malaysia.

Read More »

LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF FRAUDULENT VESSEL REGISTRATION: LESSONS FROM COSCO SHIPPING HEAVY INDUSTRY V OSTA FLEET

In Cosco Shipping Heavy Industry (Dalian) Co Ltd & Anor v Osta Fleet Sdn Bhd, the court examined a vessel registration dispute involving allegations of fraudulent documentation. The Plaintiffs argued that Osta Fleet fraudulently registered the vessel “Dalian Developer” using a falsified Builder’s Certificate. The court’s forensic analysis revealed inconsistencies in the document, ultimately deeming the registration invalid under the Merchant Shipping Ordinance. The case underscores the importance of due diligence and legal safeguards in vessel registration processes.

Read More »

WHEN CARGO GOES ASTRAY: THE RISKS OF DELIVERING WITHOUT A BILL OF LADING

In a recent English Court of Appeal decision, the issue of misdelivery without the presentation of the original bill of lading was brought into focus. The court examined the shipowner’s delivery of cargo without presentation of the bill of lading and the subsequent endorsement to UniCredit Bank. Although a breach was found, the claim was dismissed on causation grounds, as the bank had knowledge of and implicitly authorized the delivery. This case emphasizes the crucial role of bill of lading in maritime transactions.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us