[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
3K views7 pages

Temenggong Securities LTD & Anor V Registrar of

This document summarizes a court case between Temenggong Securities Ltd, its subsidiary Ta, and the Registrar of Titles in Johore. Li-Ta Company was indebted to the Malaysian government for unpaid taxes and sold its land in Johore to Temenggong Securities. The transfer was completed and registered except the Registrar of Titles later entered a caveat against the land at the request of the Inland Revenue Department for the government's interest in recovering the unpaid taxes from Li-Ta Company. The High Court dismissed Temenggong and Ta's application to cancel the caveat, but the Federal Court reversed this decision, finding that as bare trustees who had received payment, Li-Ta

Uploaded by

HARVINPAL KAUR GHUMAN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
3K views7 pages

Temenggong Securities LTD & Anor V Registrar of

This document summarizes a court case between Temenggong Securities Ltd, its subsidiary Ta, and the Registrar of Titles in Johore. Li-Ta Company was indebted to the Malaysian government for unpaid taxes and sold its land in Johore to Temenggong Securities. The transfer was completed and registered except the Registrar of Titles later entered a caveat against the land at the request of the Inland Revenue Department for the government's interest in recovering the unpaid taxes from Li-Ta Company. The High Court dismissed Temenggong and Ta's application to cancel the caveat, but the Federal Court reversed this decision, finding that as bare trustees who had received payment, Li-Ta

Uploaded by

HARVINPAL KAUR GHUMAN
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 7

TEMENGGONG SECURITIES

LTD & ANOR v REGISTRAR


OF TITLES, JOHORE & ORS
Facts
Li-Ta Company (Private) Limited (LT), a company incorporated in
Singapore, was heavily indebted to the Government of the Federation of
Malaysia for income tax which was overdue. On 30 August 1972, LT
signed an agreement with Temenggong Securities for the sale of its land
in Johor. Completion of the sale took place less than a month thereafter
when the purchase price was satisfied and a transfer of the land was
executed in favour of Ta, a wholly-owned subsidiary company and
nominee of Temenggong.
• A couple of days later, on 24 September 1972, the Inland Revenue Department
started an action against LT for the recovery of the overdue tax. Meanwhile, on
being informed that LT was disposing its land in Johore, the Inland Revenue
Department forthwith wrote a letter on 2 October 1972 to the Registrar of Titles,
Johore requesting the latter to enter a registrar’s caveat against the land
concerned. This was done by the Registrar on 11 October 1972 in pursuance of
the Registrar’s powers arising under s 320(1)(b)(i) of the National Land Code
1965 for the protection of the ‘interest’ of the government.
• Subsequently, the transfer of the land title in favor of Ta, the nominee,
was rejected on the ground that such presentation was prohibited by
the entry of the registrar’s caveat. Temenggong and Ta then applied by
originating motion in the High Court for an order directing the
Registrar to cancel the registrar’s caveat and to register the instrument
of transfer.
Held
• The application was dismissed by the High Court on the ground that an
interest of the Federation which is entitled to protection by a registrar’s
caveat under s 320(1)(b)(i) would include a claim of the Federal
Government to recover overdue income tax from LT. On appeal to the
Federal Court, the decision of the court of first instance was reversed and
the Registrar of Titles was ordered to register the instrument of transfer. The
Federal Court, in delivering its ratio decidendi, adopted the well-established
English equitable doctrine of bare trust which was enunciated by Sir George
Jessel MR in Lysaght v Edwards.
• The Federal Court took the considered view that the vendors (LT),
being bare trustees for the purchasers after receiving the purchase
price, had no longer any interest in the land which could be frozen by
the registrar’s caveat. Privy Council upheld the Federal Court’s
decision. the Federal Court’s ratio decidendi on the applicability of the
equitable doctrine of bare trust was discarded and not expressly
followed by the Privy Council
THANK YOU.

You might also like