Malaysia Case Law

24 Feb 2025

VIMALA A/P MARUTHAMUTHOO PAUL MONASH A/L NARAYANASAMY PENCELAH KAVITAH A/P VATHUMALAI

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1077-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

BA-24NCvC-1077-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant lacked a valid caveatable interest because the alleged 2012 agreement was invalid or unsupported by credible evidence, the defendant delayed for over a decade without enforcing rights (laches/limitation), and the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff who had completed performance; accordingly the private caveat must be removed.

• Private caveat removal
• Caveatable interest
• Laches and limitation
• Balance of convenience

28 Apr 2022

1. ) Abdul Ravuff Bin Datuk A.S. Dawood 2. ) Sikkandar Batch Bin Datuk A.S. Dawood 3. ) Nafeesha Begam Shajahan 4. ) Kursith Bt Datuk A.S. Dawood 5. ) Faridah Begum Bt Datuk A.S. Dawood 6. ) Julaiha Begum Bt Datuk A.S. Dawood Dr. Abdul Rahi

Citation

02(f)-15-03/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

Court

f

Case number

02(f)-15-03/2020(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)

The 1981 Agreement did not create a trust because Dawood, the donor, did not do everything necessary to effectuate a transfer of the shares or declare himself trustee; the promises were imperfect gratuitous gifts which equity will not perfect (Milroy principle); consequently no constructive trust arose, and the Court of Appeal was correct to set aside the High Court on that basis; limitation and laches also applied and the sales to Azinal and to Vision Wagon were not sham or undervalue as alleged.

• Constructive trust
• Incomplete/voluntary gift (milroy principle)
• Remedial vs institutional constructive trust
• Laches and limitation
• Sham transaction and undervalue sale
• Appellate review standard (plainly wrong)

28 Feb 2022

Mohd Affandi Bin Ahmad 1. ) PEMBANGUNAN TANAH DAN PERUMAHAN SDN. BHD 2. ) Q-DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 3. ) MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD

Citation

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court

High Court

Case number

JA-22NCvC-190-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the Plaintiffs proved that predecessors paid full purchase price and were in possession, rendering the First Defendant a bare/constructive trustee; therefore the First Defendant's registered title was defeasible under s.340(4)(b) NLC; the Second Defendant failed to prove it was a bona fide purchaser for valuable consideration and thus its title to Lots 97 and 716 is set aside; charges in favour of the Third Defendant deriving from the Second Defendant are likewise defeasible; contemporaneous ledgers and receipts were admissible and credible under Evidence Act p…

• Constructive/bare trust
• Indefeasibility of title (s.340 nlc)
• Bona fide purchaser for value
• Nemo dat quod non habet
• Admissibility of business records (evidence act ss32,73a,90)
• Laches and limitation

FABER MERLIN

Citation

FABER MERLIN

Court

Malaysian court

The contract, read grammatically and in context, excludes the basement car parks from common property and gives purchasers rights of 'use and enjoyment' subject to the vendor's power to impose restrictions and to make reasonable amendments under clauses 1.01(f) and 10.02; the construction and sale of the mezzanine, hotel lobby and roof garden were within the vendor's contractual rights and were not shown to be unreasonable; service charges are to be determined by the vendor pending issue of subsidiary titles; equitable discretion precluded respondents from relief given their delay; accordingl…

• Common property
• Strata title
• Contract construction
• Service charges
• Laches and limitation
• Admissibility of extrinsic evidence