The court ruled that the plaintiff failed to establish a valid trust over the property, emphasizing the required standard of proof and the detrimental effects of laches due to a long delay in asserting claims.

Introduction

[1] The appellant, Low Tin Yong @ Low Yong Lian, who was the defendant in the court below ("the appellant") appealed from the judgment of the High court of Malaya at Shah Alam, allowing the claim by the respondent, Low Yong Thuan, the plaintiff in the court below ("the respondent"), for a declaration that a piece of land known as Grant No: 50645, Lot No: 7968, Mukim Kajang, Daerah Ulu Langat, Negeri Selangor ("the said land") and registered in the name of the appellant since 11 January 1963, is held on trust by him for the respondent and his six other siblings. The appellant and the respondent are brothers. Three of the other siblings have passed away.

[2] On appeal to this court, the appellant contends that the trial judge misdirected herself in that she misconstrued or failed to properly/reasonably evaluate the evidence before her, in relation to salient matters of fact. This resulted in findings of fact that were plainly wrong. It was further contended that the learned judge had failed to appreciate sufficiently or at all the issue of laches in relation to the claim of the existence of a trust. Additionally, the learned trial judge misdirected herself on the law in relation to whether the requisite elements required for the subsistence of a trust did in fact exist on the factual matrix of this case, as well as the burden/standard of proof to be applied when determining whether a trust subsists. It was the appellant's assertion in this court that these cumulative errors of fact and law resulted in the incorrect determination that the appellant holds the said land on trust for the appellant and his other siblings.

[3] In this court, we concluded that the appeal should be allowed. We found on a consideration of the totality of the evidence that there was simply insufficient evidence to meet the threshold requirements for the existence of a trust, even applying the lower standard of proof of a balance of probabilities. The learned trial judge had, with respect, misdirected herself in fact and in law when she failed to appreciate that the essential elements for the creation of a trust, express or implied were not made out on the evidence before the court. We were satisfied that none of the features of an express or implied trust were evident on the evidential matrix of this case. Finally on the issue of laches, we agreed with the learned counsel for the appellant that there was an inordinate delay in the institution of the suit, which had not been satisfactorily explained. We therefore set aside the decision of the learned trial judge and dismissed the respondent's claim.

[4] We append below the full reasons for our decision.

Salient Background Facts

[5] The parents of the appellant and respondent, namely Low Peng Hong ("the father") and Tan Kuan ("the mother") had seven children in total. Both the father and mother of the appellant and the respondent are now deceased.

[6] The father of the parties worked as a supervisor, more colloquially referred to as a 'kepala' at an estate in Pahang. On 1 August 1955, the father commenced a business as the proprietor of a sundry provision shop known as Chop Hock Bee ("the sundry shop"). The father was registered as the sole proprietor of this business.

[7] In 1958, the appellant turned sixteen and began to work in the sundry shop. It is not in dispute that he did not receive a salary for his work there.

[8] The appellant's siblings, Low Yong Piew, Low Yong Pak @ Yong Pak and the respondent also helped out in the sundry shop.

[9] The father purchased properties in the mother's name using the money from the sundry shop business. The said land is one of those properties. It was registered in the name of the siblings' mother on 8 October 1962. Rubber trees were cultivated on the said land.

[10] On 11 January 1963, about three months after acquiring the said land, the mother transferred the said land to the appellant. The appellant's contention is that the said land wa