Back
2019 MarsdenLR 1756
COURT OF APPEAL PUTRAJAYA
IKUMI TERADA – Appellant
Versus
JEMIX CO LTD & ORS AND ANOTHER APPEAL – Respondent
[Civil Appeals Nos: W-02(IPCV)(W)-1833-09-2018 & W-02(IPCV)(W)-1840-09-2018]
Establishment of express trusts requires certainty of intention, subject matter, and objects; finding ruled credible witnesses upheld the trust principle.
Headnote:The court examined the appeal involving express trusts and the ownership of shares held by defendants, ultimately ruling that the 2nd and 3rd defendants held the shares on express trust for the 2nd plaintiff. On the matter of trusts, the court reaffirmed the necessity for the certainties of intention, subject matter, and object. The appeals were dismissed based on the findings of fact regarding the defendants' credibility and the invalidity of the agreements presented. The final outcome affirms the learned judge's decision, grounded on the principle that the shares were held in trust.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the structure of the parties involved in the appeals. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. overview of the trust claim concerning shares. (Para 4) |
[1] There were two appeals before this court from the decision of the High court at Kuala Lumpur delivered after trial on 6 August 2018 granted in favour of the respondents against the appellants. We heard both appeals.
[2] In Appeal No W-02 (IPCV)(W)-1833-09-2018 ("Appeal 1833"), the appellant is the 2nd defendant (Ikumi Terada) and the respondents are the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and the 1st defendant. In Appeal No W-02(IPCV)(W)-1840-09-2018 ("Appeal 1840"), the appellant is the 3rd defendant (Aizuddin). The respondents are the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs.
[3] For the sake of brevity and convenience, in this appeal, the appellants will be referred to as the 2nd and 3rd defendants and the respondents will be referred to as the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs and 1st defendant, consistent with their description in the High court.
[4] In the Notice of Appeal 1833 dated 3 September 2018, the 2nd defendant stated that the appeal is against part of the said decision which was in favour of the 1st and 2nd plaintiffs. Whereas, in the Notice of Appeal 1840 dated 3 September 2018, the 3rd defendant stated that the appeal is against part of the decision granting judgment against him with costs of RM165,719.80.
