In Malaysia, the doctrine of constructive trusts has always been accepted as a doctrine firmly grounded on principles of Equity and Trusts in England and Wales. A constructive trust must be imposed based on clear principles as opposed to being imposed on an arbitrary basis. Recently in July 2017, the Federal Court in Perbadanan Kemajuan Pertanian Selangor v JW Properties Sdn Bhd (2017) MLJU 1107 has laid down a somewhat "three pronged test" for the workings of constructive trust. This decision seems to now suggest that the Malaysian position is that constructive trusts are to be imposed as a "remedial device" on the basis of "unjust enrichment" i.e. as a remedial constructive trust. Whilst this may be argued as one of the clearer pronouncements of the apex court in Malaysia on the point of constructive trusts, the question that needs to be addressed is, has the apex court provided clarity or caused further trepidation amongst those who could be possibly affected by the application of the law pronounced in this case. The papers primary contribution is the finding that whilst the decision provides a relief from the past plethora of uncertainty as seen in the list of cases discussed, the elements laid down also seem to lack force and clarity of basis which may cause some far reaching implications. Contribution/ Originality: The papers primary contribution is the finding that whilst the decision provides a relief from the past plethora of uncertainty as seen in the list of cases discussed, the elements laid down also seem to lack force and clarity of basis which may cause some far reaching implications.
Contribution/ Originality: The paper's primary contribution is to provide clarity on the far reaching effects of the imposition of constructive trusts as a remedial device in Malaysia. The article should provide some guidance from jurisdictions in the Commonwealth countries for the Malaysian courts to use when imposing a constructive trust. STATEMENT OF PROBLEMThe Malaysian position on constructive trusts has been clearly laid down in several hallmark judicial pronouncements in recent years. The Malaysian Courts have accepted that constructive trust will be imposed as a ‗remedial device' starting from the Court of Appeal decision of Tay et al. (2009) (hereinafter referred to as "Tay Choo Foo" followed by the Federal Court decisions of the (RHB Bank Berhad and Travelsight, 2016) (hereinafter referred to as -Travelsight Case‖) and Perbadanan and Properties (2017) (hereinafter referred to as the -Api-Api Case‖ since the subject matter of the case was in relation to a piece of land in the district of Api-Api, Kuala Selangor). It is a well-known fact that a constructive trust when imposed will give rise to a claim which is proprietary in nature which will then have far reaching implications for third parties (Liew, 2016). There is further trepidation of such implications in circumstances where are there are no clear guiding principles given by the courts as seen in the judicial pronouncements above (Iqbal-Singh et al., 2018). This article will attempt to provide some elucidations on
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.