1.

MUNAH V FATIMAH

The beneficiaries of a land of an estate who had contracted to sell the land but failed to

transfer the land legally to the plaintiff were ordered by the court to effect the transfer.

Although the beneficiaries owned the estate legally, the court recognised the plaintiff as the

equitable owner of the land after signing the contract and going into possession.

2. CHAPPELL V TIMES NEWSPAPER

The COA emphasised that the plaintiff by their refusal to undertake to refrain from disruptive

action during an industrial dispute, had not shown themselves willing to perform their side of

contracts of employment and could not seek equitable relief when they were not prepared to

act equitably.

3. PALANIAPA CHETTIAR V ARUNASALAM CHETTIAR

A father had owned a large piece of rubber land allowed under the regulation at that time. In

order to avoid tax assessment over ownership of an extra 40 acres of land, the father

transferred the 40 acres to his son as nominee. A receipt of $7000 was obtained from his son

when actually no money was involved. Subsequently, the father contracted to sell this land

but the son refused to give him the power of attorney. The father brought an action for a

declaration that the son held the land on trust for him. The Privy Council dismissed the

father’s action on the ground of ‘unclean hand’ as the transfer was made for a fraudulent

purpose.

4. OVERTON V BANISTER

A minor fraudulently misrepresented her age and persuaded trustees to pay money to her.

Later, when she came of age, she sued them for the payment of the sum again but her claim

was not allowed.

 5. EASTERN PROPERTIES SDN BHD V HAMPSTEAD CORPORATION SDN

BHD

Gopal Sri Ram JCA explained ––“… there are certain basic threads that have been woven

into the fabric of equitable doctrine through the pronouncements in the leading cases on the

subject. One of these is that a supplicant who prays in aid of equitable assistance must

himself or herself be not guilty of equitable misconduct. This is sometimes put in the form of

the maxim: He who comes to equity must come with clean hands. So, a contract breaker

cannot successfully invoke the remedy of specific performance.”

6. MARGARET CHUA V HO SWEE KIEW & ORS

A lease which is not registered is void as a lease under the law but is good and valid as an

agreement for a lease and may be enforceable in equity by a decree of specific performance.

7. PAUL V CONSTANCE

The court held that the absence of the word “trust” was not fatal to the findings of an express

declaration of trust, taking into account the unsophisticated character of the deceased and his

relationship with the plaintiff. The words used by Constance to assure Paul of her joint

entitlement to the moneys in the account were sufficient to constitute a declaration of trust.

8. RE KAYFORD

Megarry J held that ‘it is well settled that a trust can be created without using the word “trust”

or “confidence” or the like. The question is whether in substance a sufficient intention to

create a trust has been manifested’.

 9. PARKIN V THORAID

Romilly MR said: ‘If [a court of equity] finds that, by insisting on the form the substance will

be defeated, it holds it inequitable to allow a person to insist on such form and thereby defeat

the substance’.

10. AHMAD SHAHRIR BIN NAZI V NASHRUL HAZIMIE BIN AB HALIM &

ORS

The court considered the plaintiff’s action in not protecting his interest in the disputed

property as leisurely paced. He should be more vigilant and the relevant equitable maxim

applicable would be ‘equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights’. Based

on the evidence, it is clear that the plaintiff’s action did not in any way reflect his urgency to

conclude and perfect the transaction.

11. GOH HENG KOW V RAJA ZAINAL ABIDIN BIN RAJA HUSSIN

Long, a registered proprietor of three piece of land sold the land to the defendant in 1993.

The plaintiff, a beneficiary of the previous registered proprietor(settlor), lodged a caveat on

the land in 1994, which prevented the D from registering the transfer. When the P applied to

extend the caveat, D sought to set aside the order of extension. The court found that the P had

acquiesced to Long’s title for almost thirty years and they were thus, estopped and barred by

laches from asserting their alleged interest. Where a beneficiary under a trust entered a

private caveat instead of a trust caveat and failed to state in his statutory declaration

concerning the existence of the trust, he is barred by the equitable doctrine of laches from

relying on the existence of the trust. The order was set aside.
 12. NELSON V RYE

It was held that a musician could not claim an account of earnings wrongfully restrained by

his manager in breach of fiduciary duty because he had waited for more than six years before

commencing an action.

13. HL BANNERJI V CHIN CHENG REALTY (PTE) LTD

The parties had signed a ten years lease of the respondent’s premises with a provision for

renewal if the appellant made a request, three months before the expiration of the lease.

When the appellant requested for a renewal of lease for ten years, the respondens refused.

The appellant sued for specific performance and succeeded. The court held that the appellant

always had an equitable right to renewal of the lease as equity looks upon as done what ought

to have been done.

14. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR HONG KONG V REID

It was further explained that the maxim implies that the fiduciary who receives an

unauthorised profit in breach of his duty of loyalty will hold the profit on constructive trust

for his principal because he is subject to an equitable duty to account for the profit he

received. In other word, the question is what would be the position if what should have been

done had been done? Since equity acts on the conscience of a person, the court’s order will

impose the concept of trust relating to breach of fiduciary duties.

15. MOUNTNEY V TREHARNE

it was held that where any court orders a person to transfer property, equity treats the transfer

as having already been executed. Hence, once the order is made, ‘the beneficiary’ of the order
immediately becomes entitled to an equitable interest in the property ordered to be

transferred. The husband in this case, became a constructive trustee of the property for the

wife.

16. PENN V LORD BALTIMORE

The P filed a suit in the Court of Chancery for specific performance of an agreement in

respect of property situated in North America. The D challenged the jurisdiction of the court

to grant the remedy as the property was outside England. The court held that the conscience

of the party was bound by this agreement. Being within the jurisdiction of this court, which

acts in personam the court may properly decree it as an agreement.

17. LAU CHOONG CHOO V CHOU WE CHUAN

The appellant was the wife of the respondent. During marriage they bought the matrimonial

house in Singapore. Later, the appellant instituted divorce proceedings on the ground of

cruelty. She brought an actin under section 55 of the Women’s Charter 1961 for equal share

of the matrimonial house. She contended that she had contributed a sum of $13000 towards

the purchase price of the house and the balance of the payment was paid by mortgage by the

respondent. She also contributed to the running of the matrimonial home. The court held that

the appellant had made substantial financial contribution towards the acquisition and the

running of the matrimonial home which justified the conclusion that it was the common

intention of both spouses that they should share even though the transfer was in the name of

the husband alone.