In the complex world of legal disputes, where truth is often obscured by the fog of conflicting narratives, one might overlook the humble yet formidable power of a document. In the recent High Court case of Goh Choo Hock v Goh Swee Meng [2024] AMEJ 0936, contemporaneous documents played a crucial role in determining the outcome of a land ownership dispute between 2 brothers.
Background
This case revolved around a dispute between two brothers, Goh Choo Hock (CH) and Goh Swee Meng (SM) over the ownership of three pieces of land, namely Lot 173, Lot 964 and Lot 1805 (collectively known as Land). The ownership of the Land was held by CH and SM in undivided share in the following proportion:
Lot No. | CH’s share | SM’s share |
Lot 964 | 3/5 | 2/5 |
Lot 1805 | 1/2 | 1/2 |
Lot 173 | Entire Share | Nil |
The parties had initially intended to expand SM’s poultry farm business together, with CH providing financial assistance. However, SM later operated the business alone, excluded CH from associated companies and made unauthorised alterations to the land.
In light of this, CH commenced proceedings at the High Court to terminate the co-proprietorship of Lot 964 and Lot 1805 and to have the said lots partitioned. In his claim, CH contended that he was the beneficial ownership of a 3/5 share in Lot 964 and a 1/2 share in Lot 1805 where he was the registered proprietor. With regards to Lot 173, CH contended that he was the sole registered owner.
SM, in turn, counterclaimed for a declaration that CH held the Land as a resulting or constructive trustee for him and sought the transfer of the Land to himself. SM contended that CH's registered ownership was merely for “convenience and appearance's sake” and that he alone had financed the Land purchases and managed the properties.
At the heart of the matter was whether CH held the Land as a resulting or constructive trustee for SM.
High Court’s Decision
Based on the claims advanced by CH and SM, the High Court found that there was conflicting evidence from both sides:
CH claimed that SM and him were joint proprietors of Lot 964 and Lot 1805 and that the main objective of purchasing the Land was to expand CH’s poultry farm business together.
On the other hand, SM asserted that he made payments for the purchase of the Land alone and as such, CH held the Land in trust for SM.
Upon evaluating the conflicting evidence from both parties, the High Court found that SM had failed to prove the alleged trust on the balance of probabilities. Essentially, the court arrived at this finding by turning to documentary evidence to determine if there was an existence of a trust:
There was no executed trust deed.
The title deeds only showed SM as the registered proprietor and were not endorsed with the word “trustee”.
There was no proof that SM alone paid for the purchase price of the Land.
Thus, based on the documentary evidence, it was clear that CH was the registered proprietor of the Land without any adverse claim by SM. SM contended that he alone dealt with the solicitors and negotiated with the vendors of the Land. However, the court noted that this did not tantamount to proof of the trust. Instead, the court found that despite calling at numerous solicitors’ offices over the years, not once was CH requested to document any acknowledgement that he held the Land on trust for SM.
Even when CH requested for Lot 964 and Lot 1805 to be partitioned back in 2020, SM did not allege that the Land were held on trust by CH. SM, via his solicitors, merely demanded costs and compensation for the structures erected by him. The court reasoned that if SM were the beneficial owner of the said lots, he ought to have vehemently objected to CH’s request for partition. The allegation of trust was only raised by SM after the commencement of this action and was an afterthought.
Accordingly, SM’s resulting trust claim failed as he had failed to show a common intention that the Land were to be held on trust for him by CH. SM’s constructive trust claim also failed due to lack of unconscionability. In any event, the court found that SM’s counterclaim was barred by the doctrine of laches due to an inordinate delay in claiming beneficial ownership of the Lands. SM had slept on his rights and acquiesced for a great length of time.
The court concluded that CH's ownership of the Land was legitimate and it was not held in trust for SM. Accordingly, SM's counterclaim was dismissed, which in turn affirmed CH's ownership of the Land. As the relationship between the parties had broken down, the court considered it just and equitable to bring an end to their joint ownership, by making an order for sale of Lot 964 and Lot 1805 under Section 145(2)(c) of the National Land Code 1965.
Commentary
The High Court's decision underscores the importance of contemporaneous evidence where there is conflicting oral evidence. In this case, the absence of a formal trust agreement and/or written documents weakened SM’s contention that the Land were held on trust by CH. In this regard, the court relied on the Federal Court in Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar Co [1979] 2 MLJ 229, the Federal Court remarked on the reliability of contemporaneous documentary evidence over conflicting oral testimony:
“For myself, I would with respect feel somewhat safer to refer to and rely on the acts and deeds of a witness which are contemporaneous with the event and to draw the reasonable inferences from them than to believe his subsequent recollection or version of it, particularly if he is a witness with a purpose of his own to serve and if it did not account for the statements in his documents and writings. …”
Furthermore this decision amplifies the court’s role in the face of conflicting evidence, to look at all the surrounding facts and to weigh contemporaneous documents on a balance of probabilities. The High Court relied on Court of Appeal case in AB Latef & Associates(M) Sdn Bhd v Govindasamy Suppiah [2016] 10 CLJ 1 where it was highlighted that witnesses testify to events that happened a long time ago whilst the contemporaneous documents speak of matters which exist at the time such documents were created:
“In this case, the parties testified to events that took place 13 years before the commencement of this suit, whilst the contemporaneous documents speak of matters existing at the time such documents were issued or used and accordingly the contemporaneity of the documents to the event in question that is, the purchase of the said property, would make it more reliable evidence or could lend credence to the oral testimony of witnesses. The relevancy and reliability of contemporaneous evidence without doubt holds true and can be of great assistance to a judge in ascertaining the truth of the matter.”
In a nutshell, contemporaneous documentary evidence carries a higher evidentiary value as compared to oral evidence. Thus, it is imperative for parties engaged in any form of contractual relationship, such as joint ventures or shared ownership arrangements, to establish clear terms regarding ownership and financial contributions from the outset. This can be achieved through meticulous documentation or the execution of legally binding agreements, which in turn would certainly mitigate the risk of potential conflicts arising in the future.
20 May 2024