The court upheld that a beneficiary's interest in a trust may be contingent upon reaching a specified age, thus delaying absolute ownership until that condition is met, as per the deceased's expressed wishes.

The Parties

[1] For the sake of privacy, this Court has granted an order for anonymity of the applicants, the deceased and their family companies that are involved in this matter.

[2] The Applicants here are the Son, the Widow, the Brother-in-Law and the Daughter of the deceased respectively. They sought for a termination of two trusts created under the deceased's Will where the Defendant is the sole executor and trustee for the deceased's estate. The Defendant objects to this application.

The Deceased's Will

[3] The deceased had passed away on 24 May 2021 and had left a Will, his last testament dated 18 February 2011. Four months after the deceased's passing, a grant of probate was granted to the Defendant on 22 September 2021.

[4] For the Widow, the deceased had given the moneys from his insurance policies should the nominations made could not take effect for whatever reason. If the Widow did not survive the deceased then the Son and the Daughter are given equal shares. If any of them did not survive the deceased, then the said portion were to be given to the grandchildren in equal shares. If there were no grandchildren, then the said portion would be given to either the surviving Son or Daughter. Since the Widow survived the deceased, these provisos did not arise.

[5] For the moneys in his Employees Provident Fund, the same applies. He gave them to the Widow. Since the Widow survived him, the provisos did not arise.

[6] As to the moneys standing to the deceased's credit in all his bank accounts, the deceased directed the Defendant to set aside RM1,000,000.00 to form part of the Estate Administration Funding Trust and the remaining balance to the Widow. Again, since the Widow survived him, the provisos did not arise.

[7] The deceased had also given all his investments to the Widow. They include bonds, unit trusts, structured products, commercial papers, money market instruments, treasury bills and marketable securities invested with any financial institution. Since the Widow survived the deceased, the provisos did not arise here.

[8] The deceased gave all his watches to the Son. The Will stated that if the Son did not survive him, then the watches will go to the grandchildren. In the absence of any grandchildren by the Son, then the watches were to be given to the Daughter. The Son survived the deceased so this proviso did not apply.

[9] The deceased gave all his immovable properties to the Son. The Son survived the deceased so the proviso did not arise. The immovable properties were listed in the Will:

(i) property bearing postal address at S22/27A, Kelana Jaya, Selangor;

(ii) property bearing postal address at Kemuning Utama, Shah Alam, Selangor;

(iii) property bearing postal address at Kota Damansara, Petaling Jaya, Selangor; and

(iv) property bearing postal address at St Mary Residences, Kuala Lumpur.

[10] The next clause of the Will is reproduced here for easy reference as the arguments hinge on the interpretation of the Will where the interpretation of the wordings bears significance to the conclusion by this Court. Clause 16 of the Will was worded as follows:

"I direct my Trustee to hold on trust my property bearing postal address xxx, Bukit Damansara 50490 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (hereinafter referred to as 'Trust Property I') until the demise of my wife xxx. If my wife does not survive me then the trust asset shall be distributed in accordance with the manner as if the trust has just ended. This testamentary trust is hereinafter known