Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CONTRACT LAW – SALE & PURCHASE AGREEMENT – DOCTRINE OF BARE TRUSTEE

I bought a unit of condominium from a developer. The developer was supposed to deliver separate strata title for my unit. That was not done. Years later, I discovered that the land of which the condominium was built was sold to Company Z. Can Company Z claim ownership of the condominium and later have me evicted?

  • No. The developer who sold the condominium unit is merely holding the unit in trust for the purchaser.
  • The developer is merely the registered proprietor of the undivided land which housed, inter alia, the condominium unit. In law, the developer is treated as a constructive trustee.
  • The condominium unit is beneficiary owned by the purchaser who bought the unit pursuant to a valid sale and purchase agreement (“SPA”).

What is a constructive trust?

  • A constructive trust is imposed by equity to satisfy the needs of justice and good conscience. It is a rule in equity which has the force of law.
  • For example, when a purchaser has paid full purchase price for a property, the vendor is treated in law a constructive trustee even though the unit has not been formally registered in the name of the purchaser. The property might still be registered in the name of the vendor as trustee for the purchaser. This is known as the doctrine of bare trustee. The principle of fairness and good conscience dictates that the vendor cannot claim beneficial interest to the property after having benefitted from the payment of full purchase price.
  • In the present instance, as constructive trustee, the developer is not allowed to sold the unit or the land that housed the unit to Company Z. Company Z cannot assert claim for beneficial interest for the unit which the developer does not have.

Can I apply for the Condominium Unit to be transferred to me later.

  • Yes. You may apply for specific performance so that the condominium unit is transferred to your name when the strata title is issued.
  • This is notwithstanding, the land now is registered in the name of Company Z.

If my SPA is signed 20 years ago, can Company Z rely on Limitation Act to defeat my application?

  • It depends whether the formal request to transfer has exceeded 6 years of limitation. If you have only requested for the unit to be transferred now, time would only start to run now. Limitation would not have set in.

(Case in Point: Pihak Berkuasa Kemajuan Pekebun Kecil Perusahaan Getah (RISDA) v Koperasi Ladang Pekebun-Pekebun Kecil Malaysia Bhd [2022] MLJU 255)

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 尚無留言

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们