JUDGMENT

Low Hop Bing JCA:

Appeal

[1] This is the appellant's ("the plaintiff's") appeal against the decision of the High Court in dismissing his claim against the respondent ("the defendant") and in allowing the defendant's counterclaim, with costs.

Plaintiff's Claim

[2] The plaintiff's claim, based on a trust deed executed by the defendant on 16 February 1995 in favour of the plaintiff ("the trust deed"), prayed for the transfer, by the defendant to Amity Evergreen Sdn. Bhd, of the land held under H.S. (D) 76684, P.T. No. 12691 together with a double storey terrace house erected thereon ("the property"); the transfer, by the defendant to the plaintiff, of the sum of RM50,000 in the fixed deposit Account No. 4214262047346 at Kuala Lumpur Dang Wangi Malayan Banking Berhad ("the fixed deposit"); the refund by the defendant to the plaintiff of the sums of RM63,833.87 and S$23,374.91; damages; and costs.

Defendant's Counterclaim

[3] The defendant's counterclaim was for damages based on the plaintiff's breach of promise to marry the defendant, and a declaration that the trust deed is null and void, and costs.

Factual Background

[4] After a full trial, the High Court arrived at a specific finding of facts which I now narrate below.

[5] The plaintiff, a Singapore businessman, is married and has been blessed with three children.

[6] The plaintiff met the defendant, a Malaysian woman who worked as a karaoke singer in Singapore.

[7] Having developed a clandestine relationship with the defendant in 1994, the plaintiff asked the defendant to look for a house in Malaysia as the plaintiff had promised to marry the defendant as his wife.

[8] In 1995, the defendant succeeded in procuring a house which is the property. The plaintiff purchased it at a consideration of RM99,000. However, the defendant executed the sale and purchase agreement on 6 January 1995 as the purchaser.

[9] On 16 February 1995, in the name of the defendant, the plaintiff deposited a sum of RM50,000 in the fixed deposit account by way of housing loan security for the property.

[10] On the same date, the defendant executed the trust deed to the effect that the defendant was holding the property and the RM50,000 in trust for the plaintiff, and the defendant shall sign all relevant documents to effect the transfer of the property and the fixed deposit as directed by the plaintiff. The trust deed did not cover the other sums claimed by the plaintiff.

[11] The plaintiff and the defendant were staying together whenever the plaintiff visited Malaysia, and also while they were on holidays, at the plaintiff's expenses, in the People's Republic of China, Taiwan and Hong Kong. The plaintiff had introduced the defendant as his wife to his relatives while in the People's Republic of China.

[12] The plaintiff had also allowed the defendant to use his ATM card, besides asking her to attend to the renovation and air-conditioning for the property.

[13] When the defendant subsequently discovered that the plaintiff was already married and had his own family establishment, and so had refused to marry her, the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant became acrimonious. A complete breakdown ensued.

[14] Consequently, the plaintiff commenced this claim and the defendant filed the counterclaim.

Enforcement Of Trust

[15] In essence, learned counsel Mr. Joseph Yeo submitted for the plaintiff that the plaintiff is entitled to enforce the trust contained in the trust deed, as the defendant was holding the property and the RM50,000 in trust for the plaintiff, as a result of which, the defendant is required to transfer the property and the RM50,000 as directed by the plaintiff.

[16] It was argued by defendant's learned counsel Mr. Lavendran that, inter alia, the property was purchased and the RM50,000 was deposited as gifts to the defendant in consideration of love and affection arising from the intended marriage which the plaintiff has promised the defendant.

[17] On a balance of probabi