Chai Jook Kew v Chai Jen Chiew & Anor

Appellant(s): Chai Jook Kew (Menyaman sebagai Pentadbir Harta Pusaka Si Mati, Chai Yen Chong)

Respondent(s):

• Chai Jen Chiew (Didakwa Sebagai Wakil Diri Harta Pusaka Chai King Chong, Si Mati Menurut Perintah Mahkamah Bertarikh 30.9.2020)
• Chai Jen Chiew

• YA Dato' Che Mohd Ruzima Bin Ghazali
• YA Datuk Seri Mohd Firuz Bin Jaffril
• YA Dato' Ong Chee Kwan

• The appellant, as administrator of a deceased's estate, brought claims over two properties listed in the deceased's Will: a factory and land in Puchong ("Puchong Land") held by the first respondent as registered trustee, and approximately 20 acres of land in Queensland, Australia ("Nutting Property") held by the second respondent as registered trustee. The first respondent transferred the Puchong Land to the third respondent in 2013 for love and affection; the Nutting Property was sold in 2014 for AUD $7.35 million.
• The High Court dismissed the appellant's claim to recover the Puchong Land and the claim for AUD $1,000,000 from the Nutting Property sale proceeds, but allowed the appellant's claim to 2/3 of the net Nutting Property sale proceeds, and dismissed the first and third respondents' counterclaim for conspiracy.
• Both sides appealed: the appellant against the dismissal of the Puchong Land claim, and the first and third respondents against the finding that the deceased held a 2/3 beneficial interest in the Nutting Property.

• Whether the cumulative evidence — including the withheld Declaration of Trust, the deceased's Will, remittance of rental income, and payment of subdivision premium — was sufficient to establish a prima facie case of beneficial ownership in the Puchong Land, shifting the evidential burden to the respondents, and whether the respondents discharged that burden.
• Whether the third respondent, who received the Puchong Land as a volunteer with actual notice of the deceased's interest, could invoke indefeasibility of title under s. 340(3) of the National Land Code 1965.
• Whether the High Court's finding that the deceased held a 2/3 beneficial interest in the Nutting Property — supported by the credible evidence of the second respondent and corroborating documentary evidence — should be disturbed on appeal.

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal on the Puchong Land, holding that the cumulative evidence overwhelmingly established the deceased's beneficial ownership; the respondents failed to discharge the shifted evidential burden, and the adverse inference under s. 114(g) of the Evidence Act 1950 was drawn against them for withholding the Declaration of Trust.
• The third respondent's claim to indefeasibility failed on two independent grounds: he was a volunteer who provided no valuable consideration and thus fell outside s. 340(3) NLC, and he had actual notice of the deceased's equitable interest having assisted in preparing the Will that listed the Puchong Land as the deceased's asset.
• The appeal against the Nutting Property finding was dismissed, the Court affirming the 2/3 beneficial interest in favour of the deceased's estate; the AUD $1,000,000 claim also failed as that sum fell within the first respondent's own 1/3 entitlement, meaning no breach of trust arose; and the conspiracy counterclaim was dismissed as pursuing a legitimate trust claim cannot constitute the tort of conspiracy.