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

2023 MarsdenLR 1613

COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
DATUK SERI POH GEOK SENG & ORS – Appellant
Versus
PANG SIEW FIAN & ANOR AND OTHER APPEALS – Respondent
[Civil Appeal Nos: M-01(IM)(NCVC)-547-09-2021 M-01(IM)(NCVC)-553- 09-2021 & M-02(IM)(NCVC)-570-10-2021]



Petitioner Advocates:Ambiga Sreenevasan,Ng Kong Peng,Sarah Ho Yixin,Yok Jiang Lin,Tan Yoon Chang ,Respondent Advocate: Cyrus Das,Jagjit Singh,Yap Bell Pung,Tan Cheng Kiat,Joshua Vijayan Dhamaraj,Adre Wee Heng Leong

The Board of Governors of SJK (C) Pay Fong 1 lacks legal personality and capacity to sue under the Education Act 1996, as no explicit provisions confer such status.

Headnote:(A) Education Act 1996 - Sections 2 and 53 - Government Proceedings Act 1956 - Section 9(1) - Legal capacity of the Board of Governors of SJK

(C) Pay Fong 1 - The court found that the Board of Governors does not possess legal personality under the Education Act 1996, thus lacking the capacity to sue or be sued. The court emphasized that the legislative intent did not confer such status, as demonstrated by the absence of explicit provisions for legal entity status in the Act. Consequently, the appeals by the Plaintiffs and the Attorney General were dismissed, and the Defendants' appeal was struck out. (Paras 16, 18, 70, 78-80)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs, as members of the school board, sought to establish the Board's legal capacity to sue regarding trust properties held for the benefit of the school, which had been in existence since 1913. The Defendants contended that the Board lacked such capacity under the Education Act.

Findings of Court:
The court concluded that the Board of Governors is a statutory creation without legal entity status, reaffirming previous rulings on similar issues.

Issues: The primary issue was whether the Board of Governors is a legal entity with the capacity to sue under the Education Act 1996.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that the absence of provisions conferring legal personality on the Board indicates legislative intent not to grant such capacity. The court distinguished the functions of the Board from those of a legal entity, emphasizing the limitations imposed by the Education Act.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of appeals and parties involved. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7)
2. historical context of trust properties and disputes. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. preliminary issues determined by consent. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
4. high court's findings on legal capacity. (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
5. plaintiffs' arguments on legal entity status. (Para 28 , 29 , 30)
6. defendants' counterarguments on legal capacity. (Para 32 , 33)
7. court's analysis of statutory provisions. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
8. further observations on legal entity and capacity. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65)
9. decision on locus standi and procedural matters. (Para 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76)
10. final conclusions and orders. (Para 78 , 79 , 80)
See Mee Chun JCA:

Introduction

[1] There are 3 related appeals, consolidated and heard together. Parties will be referred to as in the High Court.

[2] Appeal 547 is the appeal by the Plaintiffs; appeal 553 is the appeal by the Attorney General (AG) as the 5th Defendant and appeal 570 is the appeal by the rest of the Defendants.

[3] All references to enclosures are to appeal 547 except where otherwise stated.

[4] The appeals relate to 2 preliminary issues which the Plaintiffs and Defendants had consented before the Court of Appeal on 17 August 2020 (CA Order) to be determined pursuant to O 33 rr 2 and 5 Rules of Court 2012 (RC 2012). This was also consented to by the AG. Subsequently the Defendants filed encl 48 on 15 April 2021. The CA Order had arisen from the Defendants' appeal against the dismissal of their striking out application of this suit.

Parties

[5] The Plaintiffs are the current members of the school board of SJK (C) Pay Fong 1 (Pay Fong School). They have filed the suit in their names in their representative capacities as members of the Pay Fong School Board for and on its behalf.

[6] The Defendants (other than the 5th Defendant) are the registered proprietors of Lot 87 and Lot 831 (Trust Properties) and the current trustees of the Trust Properties.

[7] The 5th Defendant is the AG, in relation to the consent granted pursuant to s 9(1) of the Government Proceedings Act 1956 ( GPA ).

Background Facts

[8] The subject matter of the dispute relates to the status of 2 pieces of land, namely Lot 87 and Lot 831 which are said to be held in trust for the use and benefit of Pay Fong School. The trust in question was established in 1913.

[9] On or about 7 July 1913, a Chinese medium primary school known as Pay Fong Lower and Higher Primary School was established. In or about 1958 the School was renamed and is now known as SJK (C) Pay Fong 1 (Pay Fong School).

[10] The Trust Properties were subsequently donated and vested in the trustees.

[11] In or about 1958 Pay Fong School and the respective school boards of 5 other schools formed the Joint Board. The Joint Board was dissolved around May 2010.

[12] Over the years, there has been 7 sets of trustees for the Trust Properties and the Defendants are the current 7th set of trustees.

[13] Pay Fong School has since relocated to Lot 9245 sometime in November 2011. This means that Lot 831 is no longer utilized as a school while Lot 87 is being used as a car park. The dispute started when one Lim Guan Swee, who has since passed on, wrote to Pay Fong School, on behalf of the trustees, for vacant possession of Lot 831.

[14] There was also an earlier suit (suit 24) filed by the Plaintiffs for a declaration that Pay Fong School is the beneficiary of the Trust Properties and that the Defendants be removed as trustees and for the appointment of 2 named persons as trustees. Suit 24 was withdrawn and this current suit was filed. The AG's consent pursuant to s 9(1) of the GPA was said to have been obtained.

[15] There is also a counterclaim by the Defendants for a declaration inter alia that the trust is charitable t

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