Back
2025 MarsdenLR 362
HIGH COURT MALAYA SHAH ALAM
LOO AN SWEE & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
PANG KIM CHONG & ANOR – Respondent
[Suit No: BA-22NCVC-318-09/2020]
The burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish claims of misrepresentation, and written acknowledgments of payment undermine such claims.
Headnote:(A) Sale and Purchase Agreement - Misrepresentation - Burden of Proof - The Plaintiffs sold property to Defendants who failed to pay the purchase price. The court found that the Plaintiffs did not prove misrepresentation as they acknowledged receipt of payment. (Paras 1-55)
(B) Evidence - The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the Plaintiffs to establish their claims. The absence of compelling evidence from the Plaintiffs led to the dismissal of their case. (Paras 16, 34)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiffs sold property to the Defendants for RM1,500,000 but alleged non-payment of the purchase price, despite acknowledging receipt through letters. (Paras 3-12)
Findings of Court:
The court found that the Plaintiffs did not discharge their burden of proof regarding misrepresentation and accepted the Defendants' evidence of payment. (Paras 55)
Issues: The central issue was whether the Plaintiffs could establish misrepresentation by the Defendants regarding the payment for the property. (Paras 14, 15)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Plaintiffs' acknowledgment of payment in writing and their failure to prove misrepresentation resulted in the dismissal of their claim. (Paras 29, 55)
Result: The Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed, and costs of RM30,000 are awarded to the Defendants.
JUDGMENT
Introduction
[1] The Plaintiffs, having sold their property to the Defendants, now seek to terminate the sale and recover vacant possession as the Defendants having taken possession of the property, had failed to pay the purchase price.
Factual background
[2] The material facts giving rise to the present dispute are as follows. These facts are obtained primarily from the documentary evidence adduced at the trial.
[3] On 1 July 2016, the parties executed a sale and purchase agreement ("SPA") in respect of a property identified as HS(D) 97770, PT29956, Mukim Sungai Buloh, Daerah Petaling, Negeri Selangor which comprised of a double-storey semi-detached house bearing postal address No 21, Jalan TR 3/1, Tropicana Golf & Country Resort, 47410 Petaling Jaya, Selangor Darul Ehsan ("said property"). The purchase price for the said property was RM1,500,000.00.
[4] The Plaintiffs were represented by the firm of Messrs. Isharidah Ho Chong & Menon in respect of the sale. The Defendants did not appoint any solicitors to represent them.
[5] The Plaintiffs claim that sometime in May 2016, they delivered vacant possession of the said property to the Defendants. Although the full purchase price had not been made, they obliged the Defendants' request for vacant possession to enable them to commence renovations. The Defendant's version is that vacant possession was given around October 2015 and that the renovations were completed in early January 2016. However, I am of the view that nothing turns on this conflict in evidence.
[6] The Plaintiffs claim that the 1st Defendant represented to them that payment for the said property will be made upon disposing of his shares in a company named GCCP Resources Ltd, a company listed on the Singapore Stock Exchange.
[7] Subsequent to the 1st Defendant's representation, the Plaintiffs agreed to sign a letter dated 1 July 2016 confirming that a deposit payment of RM150,000.00 had been paid towards the purchase price.
[8] The transfer of the property was subject to the consent of the State Authority. The Plaintiff's solicitors Messrs Isharidah Ho Chong & Menon, then proceeded to obtain the consent, which was granted 16 August 2016.
[9] Shortly thereafter, on 8 September 2016 both Plaintiffs signed a letter of confirm to state that they had received the balance purchase price of RM1,350,000.00.
[10] Registration of the transfer to the Defendants' names was effected on 26 October 2016. Subsequent thereto, on 9 May 2019, the 1st Defendant transferred his ½ share to the 2nd Defendant. The said property is now wholly owned by the 2nd Defendant.
[11] Sometime between the years 2019-2020, the Plaintiffs came to know that the 1st Defendant had disposed of his shares in GCCP Resources Ltd They claim that notwithstanding the sale, and contrary to the 1st Defendant's representation, the Defendants failed to make payment for the said property.
[12] In view of the Defendants' failure to honour their obligations to pay, the Plaintiffs instructed their solicitors to issue a notice dated 29 June 2020 to the Defendants to terminate the SPA and to demand for vacant possession to be delivered to the Plaintiffs. The Defendants paid no heed to the demand.
[13] Instead the Defendants responded to deny non-payment of the balance purchase price. They contend that full payment had been made in accordance to the terms stated in the SPA. Due acknowledgment as to payment was made, evidenced by the 2 letters confirming that the deposit and balance purchase price respectively had been paid. In addition, upon full settlement of the purchase price, the said property was duly registered in the names of the Defendants.
Issues to be tried
[14] The Plaintiff's case is premised upon misrepresentation. This is their pleaded cause of action. In essence, they claim that the misrepresentation led them to sign the letters dated 1 July 2016 and 8 September 2016 respectively, acknowledging full payment of the purchase price even though n
