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

2023 MarsdenLR 1298

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
SAIDI ABANG SAMSUDIN & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
QEOS LED SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Suit No: WA-22NCC-450-09/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Dinesh Kanavaji ,Respondent Advocate: Shim De Zhen

The court ruled that agreements were not breached, and trust deeds were invalid due to illegal purposes, denying constructive trust claims.

Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 57(2) - Civil Law Act 1956 - Section 15 - Constructive trust - Breach of agreement - Plaintiffs claimed shares in Jepak as constructive trust beneficiaries; court found no breach by D1 of the Cooperation Agreement or the Supplementary Agreement, thus no grounds for the return of shares. (Paras 51, 54, 87)

(B) Trusts - Elements of constructive trust - Court ruled no unconscionability on D1's part, as the trust deeds were created for illegal purposes, thus unenforceable. (Paras 66, 100)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs claimed shares in Jepak, alleging D1 was a constructive trustee. D1 contended agreements were lawfully executed and no breach occurred. The court examined the validity of the trust deeds, agreements, and the circumstances surrounding their creation. (Paras 1-20)

Findings of Court:
D1 complied with its obligations under the agreements, and the trust deeds were deemed nullities due to their illegal purpose. (Paras 41, 87)

Issues: Whether D1 breached agreements, whether the agreements were terminated legally, and whether D1 held shares as a constructive trustee. (Paras 25.1-25.10)

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the agreements anticipated the possibility of termination and were not fundamentally breached. The trust deeds were invalid due to their illegal purpose, thus D1 was not a constructive trustee. (Paras 44, 66, 87)

Result: Plaintiffs' claims dismissed with costs.

Table of Content
1. plaintiffs' claims and background facts (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
2. parties' arguments regarding trusts and agreements (Para 21 , 22 , 23)
3. court's analysis and findings (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79 , 80 , 81 , 82 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86 , 87 , 88 , 89 , 90 , 91 , 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104 , 105 , 107)
4. final judgment and dismissal of claims (Para 106)
Liza Chan Sow Keng J:

Introduction

[1] In this action, the Plaintiffs claimed against the 1st Defendant ("D1") 4,800,000 units of issued and fully paid up shares in the 3rd Defendant ("Jepak") on the basis that D1 is a constructive trustee for the Second Plaintiff ("P2")) of 2,700,000 Jepak shares and the Second Defendant ("D2") of 2,100,000 Jepak shares, account by D1 and Jepak of all monies received from the Ministry of Education ("MOE") and/or the Government of Malaysia ("GOM") from 8 May 2019 to date of Order and the payment of such monies to the Plaintiffs found payable upon the taking of accounts; indemnity from D1 in respect of settlement of all liabilities and debts of Jepak as audited and/or declared as at 31 January 2019 based on payments recede by Jepak from MOE or GOM in respect of work done before and up to 31 December 2018 under the Project (defined hereafter), and damages.

[2] During trial agreed to be conducted virtually online by using the Zoom video conferencing platform, lasting 7 days, the Plaintiffs called 4 witnesses to adduce evidence whilst the Defendants called 3 witnesses in support of the Defence.

[3] I had on 29.11.22 dismissed the Plaintiff's claim. This judgment contains the reasons for my decision.

Background Facts

[4] The 3rd Defendant, Jepak is a private limited company incorporated under the laws of Malaysia and is in the construction business which includes civil, electrical and mechanical contract works, design, project management, labour supply, marine work and workshop. It is also in the business of renting out motor vehicles.

[5] The 1st Plaintiff ("P1") was the managing director and a shareholder of Jepak when GOM and/or MOE had on 20 June 2017 awarded Jepak a contract known as "Projek Bersepadu Sistem Solar Photovoltaic (PV) Hibrid dan Penyelenggaraan dan Operasi Genset/Diesel bagi 369 Sekolah Luar Bandar Sarawak" ("Project") at a contract value of RM1,325,000,000.00.

[6] The Project comprises two portions: (i) operation of gensets and maintenance of generator sets, and (ii) installation of solar photovoltaic system.

[7] Prior to December 2018, P1 was the registered owner of 4,800,000 ordinary shares out of the 6,000,000 ordinary shares that were issued and paid up in Jepak.

[8] According to P1, payments to Jepak under the Project came to a halt after the 9 May 2018 General Election which saw a change in the government. At the same time, the award came under the scrutiny of the new government and he was being investigated by the Malaysia Anti-Corruption Commission ("MACC").

[9] To protect Jepak and ensure the continuity of the Project, P1 decided to transfer 2,100,000 of his shares in Jepak on 6 December 2018 to his wife, D2 and 2,700,000 shares to P2 to be held on trust for him; with these 2 individuals each signing a trust deed and power of attorney dated 6 December 2018 as well as a Shareholders' Agreement dated 4 December 2018 pertaining to these shares.

[10] It is not disputed that the T rust Deeds, the Powers of Attorney and the Shareholders Agreement, were not registered in the books of Jepak nor was it lodged at the Companies Commission of Malaysia ("CCM").

[11] MOE and/or GOM continued to refuse to make payment to Jepak for work done since January 2018 in re

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