1. SEE CHOO PHAN 2. SEE CHU GEK 3. SEE CHOO PHAN (as Trustees of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock, according to the Letter for Probate in the High Court Muar Originating Summons No. 32NCvC-96-05/2015 dated 30.6.2015) 4. SEE CHU GEK

1. SEE CHOO PHAN 2. SEE CHU GEK 3. SEE CHOO PHAN (as Trustees of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock, according to the Letter for Probate in the High Court Muar Originating Summons No. 32NCvC-96-05/2015 dated 30.6.2015) 4. SEE CHU GEK

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs proved that the 1st defendant misappropriated estate land transfers and thereby holds the impugned shares on trust for the beneficiaries; limitation does not bar the beneficiaries under Limitation Act s.22; defendants must account for and disgorge proceeds and effect transfer to beneficiaries or provide accounting and pay assessed damages and costs.

Citation
JB-22NCVC-66-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
1st Plaintiff; 3rd Plaintiff (as Trustee of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock): See Choo Phan; 2nd Plaintiff; 4th Plaintiff (as Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Hui @ See Char Boh): See Chu Gek; 3rd Plaintiff (trustee of Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock): See Choo Phan (as Trustee); 4th Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of See Kim Hui @ See Char Boh): See Chu Gek (as Administrator); 1st Defendant: See Choo Giap; 2nd Defendant: Tee Hui Keng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Case Number
JB-22NCVC-66-10/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit (property/probate/trust Dispute Alleging Fraudulent Transfers) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Declaration of Trust, Account and Equitable Accounting, Transfer of Title (form 14 A), Administrator's Duties, Limitation Act S.22 (fraud Exception), Adverse Inference for Withheld Evidence
Source Language
Malay/English
Trusts and Fiduciary Duties Property Law Probate and Administration Civil Fraud Limitation and Statute of Limitations Unjust Enrichment/restitution Evidence Law Constructive Trust +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

See Choo Phan

1st Plaintiff; 3rd Plaintiff (as Trustee of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock)

See Chu Gek

2nd Plaintiff; 4th Plaintiff (as Administrator of the Estate of the Deceased See Kim Hui @ See Char Boh)

See Choo Phan (as Trustee)

3rd Plaintiff (trustee of Estate of the Deceased See Kim Keock)

See Chu Gek (as Administrator)

4th Plaintiff (administrator of Estate of See Kim Hui @ See Char Boh)

See Choo Giap

1st Defendant

Tee Hui Keng

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit (property/probate/trust Dispute Alleging Fraudulent Transfers) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Appropriate standard of proof for civil fraud allegations
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' claims are barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether 1st defendant, as administrator, held impugned properties on trust for beneficiaries

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiffs proved that the 1st defendant misappropriated estate land transfers and thereby holds the impugned shares on trust for the beneficiaries; limitation does not bar the beneficiaries under Limitation Act s.22; defendants must account for and disgorge proceeds and effect transfer to beneficiaries or provide accounting and pay assessed damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiffs

Orders

  • 1st Defendant holds 9/10 share of Title No. 23169 Lot 2869 as trustee for the Plaintiffs
  • 1st Defendant holds 9/10 share of Title No. 23171 Lot 2871 as trustee for the Plaintiffs