SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 4515

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
NG SIEW HAN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
NOOR AISHAH ISMAIL & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-858-11/2019]



Petitioner Advocates:Kumaresan Thurairaju,Komal Trikamlal ,Respondent Advocate: Nur Liyana Zulkifli,Nurufarhina Ab Rahim,Dhabitah Adriana Darul Aman

The court established that valid Trust Deeds create an express trust, requiring proof of intention, certainty of object, and certainty of subject, which the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated.

Headnote:(A) Trust Law - Elements of an express trust - The court examined the validity of Trust Deeds in determining ownership of 90,000 shares in Muara Emas Sdn Bhd, held by defendants. The court found sufficient evidence of intent to create a trust, satisfying the three certainties required for an express trust. (Paras 35, 37, 54)

(B) Evidence - Burden of proof - The court ruled that the plaintiffs successfully discharged their burden to prove the existence of Trust Deeds, while the defendants failed to substantiate their claims of forgery. (Paras 47, 56)

(C) Company Law - Articles of Association - The court held that the Trust Deeds did not violate the company's Articles of Association, as they were agreements between shareholders and not the company itself. (Paras 52, 54)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a mother and daughter, claimed beneficial ownership of shares held by defendants, asserting that Trust Deeds established a trust. The defendants contended the Trust Deeds were invalid and their signatures forged. (Paras 1-3, 4-10)

Findings of Court:
The court found that the Trust Deeds were valid, establishing an express trust, and ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing their claim for shares. (Paras 35, 56)

Issues: The main issues were the validity of the Trust Deeds and whether the shares were held in trust for the plaintiffs. (Paras 13, 34)

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the Trust Deeds created an express trust, with the necessary elements proven, and that the defendants' claims of forgery were unsubstantiated. (Paras 35, 37, 56)

Result: Plaintiffs' claim allowed with costs.

JUDGMENT

Raja Ahmad Mohzanuddin Shah J:

Preliminary

[1] In this action, the plaintiffs are seeking declarations and consequential reliefs to the effect that 90,000 shares in the company known as Muara Emas Sdn Bhd ("the company"), which are currently being held by the first and second defendants in the total number of 60,000 and 30,000 shares respectively, are held on trust by the defendants on behalf of the plaintiffs.

[2] Accordingly, the plaintiffs claim, inter alia, that the two (2) Trust Deeds between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which supposedly prove that the defendants are holding the plaintiffs' shares in trust, are invalid, and that the plaintiffs are the beneficial and valid owners of the shares. Also, the plaintiffs are seeking that the defendants transfer the shares to them, that all relevant documents be executed for the transfer, as well as general, exemplary and aggravated damages for breach of trust, fraudulent misrepresentation, and emotional distress.

[3] On the other hand, the defendants claim that the Trust Deeds between the plaintiffs and the defendants, which allegedly prove the defendants are holding the plaintiffs' shares in trust, are invalid. The defendants had never agreed to the Trust Deeds, let alone signed them. As a result, the defendants claim their signatures were forged. To the defendants, this proves only one thing: the shares are theirs legally.

An Overview Of The Facts Of The Case

[4] There are two plaintiffs in this case, a mother and her daughter. The first plaintiff is the daughter of the second plaintiff.

[5] There are two defendants who are siblings.

[6] It appears from the fact that the company was established by one Ng Yoke Foo ("deceased") on 21 September 1990.

[7] The deceased is the father of the first plaintiff and the husband of the second plaintiff.

[8] One of the deceased's best friends was the Tuan Haji Ismail Bin Johari.

[9] Tuan Haji Ismail Bin Johari is the defendants' father.

[10] A number of transactions took place to show how the 90,000 shares in the company evolved. Shares are traded or changed hands at several levels. These facts regarding the evolution of shares are not much in dispute. The only issue is about the legal implications of how the defendants ended up holding the shares currently in dispute.

[11] Here is the diagram produced by the plaintiffs that I find most helpful to illustrate this.

[12] Thus, the above traces the origin of the 30,000 shares and 60,000 shares that make up the 90,000 shares.

Issues To Be Tried

[13] There are eight (8) issues to be tried as proposed by the parties. In reviewing the same, I found that some issues are minor extensions of the main issues. This dispute can, therefore, be resolved by identifying the two main issues of whether the Trust Deeds are valid and whether the defendants merely hold the shares in trust on behalf of the plaintiffs who are the beneficial owners. The determination of other sub-issues will normally follow the progress of these main issues.

Court's Analysis And Findings

[14] In determining the issues posed to me for my decision, I have the above origin history of the 90,000 shares at the forefront of my mind.

[15] I will now examine the company's existence from the standpoint of its formation on 15 October 1990. From the diagram above, it is clear that it provides a crucial piece of information.

[16] After the company was formed, the deceased nominated several parties as nominees to protect his interests and the interests of his family at all relevant material times. The nominees were appointed by the deceased to serve as directors and held shares for and on behalf of the deceased.

[17] One of the nominees appointed was Tuan Haji Ismail Bin Johari, the father of the first and second defendants. Tuan Haji Ismail Bin Johari also held shares of the deceased's family at one point in time.

[18] On 31 July 2007, the deceased passed away.

[19] As to Tuan Haji Ismail Bin Johari, he passed away on 19 December 2018.

[20] Detailed his

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top