Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 1 of 2022

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 1 of 2022
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 1 of 2022

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 22 February, 2022 | 0

    Is the concept of a secret trust in a will recognised and applicable in Malaysia?

    Case:

    CHIN JHIN THIEN & ANOR v. CHIN HUAT YEAN @ CHIN CHUN YEAN & ANOR [2020] 4 MLJ 581

    Brief Facts:

    • A man was diagnosed with terminal cancer and died in 2013 (“the Deceased”). He was an engineer by profession and had three wives.

     

    • Only his marriage with the first wife was registered. The Deceased had two children with the first wife (“the Plaintiffs”).

     

    • The Deceased had 4 children with the second wife, of whom two were still studying when the Deceased died, and the youngest was still a minor at that time.

     

    • The second wife is the elder sister of the first wife. The second wife had a marital affair with the Deceased whilst the first marriage subsisted. Unable to accept the fact that her sister had an affair with her husband, the first wife filed for a divorce. Decree nisi was granted however, has not been made absolute.

     

    • In the meantime, the Deceased married his third wife who was also his business partner. His third wife was not called as a witness during the trial. Nevertheless, there were wedding photographs to show that they went through a Chinese customary marriage ceremony and the Deceased did not have any children with the third wife.

     

    • The family conflicts arose from the will made by the Deceased dated 18 December 2013. The will was prepared by a lawyer named Peter Huang who also witnessed the will together with his secretary (“the Defendants”)

     

    • Under this will, the Deceased gave all his assets and properties to the Defendants. The Deceased died six days after the will was made.

     

    • The Defendants later obtained the grant of probate on 12 February 2014 at the Kuala Lumpur High Court.

     

    • Consequently, the Plaintiffs filed a civil suit at the Pulau Pinang High Court and seeking for an order that the grant of probate issued by the Kuala Lumpur High Court be declared null and void and is revoked and cancelled; and a declaration that the will dated 18 December 2013 alleged to be the last will and testament of the Deceased is void under the law. The Plaintiff’s claim was that the deceased did not have the capacity [testamentary capacity] to make the will.

     

    • The Defendants contended that they are not the true beneficiaries of the will as they are only trustees for the benefits of the Deceased second wife and her children. In the upshot, the defendants claim that a secret trust was created under the will. It was not stated in the will that the Defendants were to hold the properties of the Deceased under the will on trust for the Deceased’s second wife and children

     

    • The High Court found in favour of the Plaintiffs. The High Court held that the Deceased did not have the capacity to make the will. They further held that if the purpose of the will was to provide for the Second Wife and the children then it should have been mentioned in the will.

     

    • The Defendants appealed to the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal found in favour of the Defendants.

     

    • The Plaintiffs appealed to the Federal Court.

    FEDERAL COURT DECISION - APPEAL DISMISSED!

    • The concept of secret trust is applicable in Malaysia subject to subject to 3(1) of the Civil Law Act 1956, the Wills Act 1959, and the fact is that the concept has never been explicitly abrogated by any of our statutes or Acts of Parliament. The doctrine does not offend public policy.

     

    • In this case, the Defendants had adduced sufficient evidence to establish that the Deceased had the testamentary capacity to make the said will.

     

    • The overriding purpose of a secret trust is to enable a property to be left in a will without explicitly naming who the property is being left to. As will are by nature public documents open to scrutiny, the concealment of the identity that a secret trust provides is vital for those desiring a degree of privacy.

    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil