SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 MarsdenLR 2073

HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TERMIZI TAN KOK SOON – Appellant
Versus
BOO KUANG LOON & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-493-08/2020]



Petitioner Advocates:Goik Kenzin ,Respondent Advocate: Yap Boon Jhoe,Kevin De Rozario

Defendants are not liable for fees contingent on project approval that was not obtained, emphasizing contractual conditions precedent and the importance of clear contractual obligations.

Headnote:(A) Evidence Act 1950 - Sections 101 and 102 - Contract Law - Conditions precedent - The Plaintiff claimed a finder's fee and salary allowance based on a Letter of Undertaking for a development project, which was not completed due to DBKL's rejection of the application for a development order. The Defendants asserted that their liability was contingent upon project approval, which was never granted. The court found that due to the mutual termination of the JVA, the Defendants were not liable to pay the Plaintiff the claimed amounts. (Paras 30, 36, 54)

Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff claimed 2.5% finder's fee based on total GDV of a development project and RM19,500 monthly salary allowance, which depended on approval for project execution by the local authority. The Defendants contended the project was never approved, arguing for non-liability.

Findings of Court:
The court ruled the Defendants fulfilled their contractual obligation by paying the initial fee and were not required to make further payments, as the project did not proceed.

Issues: Main issues included whether the project’s non-approval released the Defendants from liability and whether the Plaintiff's claims were valid despite the lack of project completion.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that contractual obligations must be interpreted based on their explicit terms, ruling that the Plaintiff’s claims were unattainable due to the non-fulfillment of conditions precedent outlined in the Letter of Undertaking and the mutual termination of the JVA.

Result: Claim dismissed with costs of RM50,000.

Table of Content
1. parties agreed on document classifications. (Para 1)
2. plaintiff claims finder’s fee and salary. (Para 2)
3. defendants assert liability conditional on approval. (Para 3)
4. evidence presented supports plaintiff's claims. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 10 , 14)
5. plaintiff argues defendants violated agreements. (Para 16 , 17 , 18)
6. defendants assert project termination negates claims. (Para 22 , 24)
7. plaintiff's drafting of agreements impacts interpretation. (Para 27 , 29)
8. courts interpret contracts according to parties' intentions. (Para 30 , 31)
9. defendants not liable for finder’s fee post-termination. (Para 37 , 38)
10. plaintiff failed to prove claims; therefore dismissed. (Para 51 , 53)
JUDGMENT

Eddie Yeo Soon Chye JC:

[After Full Trial]

Background

[1] Preceding the commencement of this trial, Plaintiff's counsel informed Court that parties have agreed that documents filed in Encls 41 and 49 to be put as Part B documents and marked as B1 and B2 respectively. The Plaintiff's counsel made an oral application to amend the writ and all documents pertaining to the Plaintiff's name from "Tan Kok Soon" to "Termizi Tan Kok Soon". The Court allowed this application as the Defendants' counsel have no objection.

[2] The Plaintiff's claim in a nutshell are as follows:

(a) 2.5% finder's fee on the total Gross Development Value (GDV) of the development project on Risda's two plots of land known as Lot 169 and 170, Section 89, Jalan U-Thant, Kuala Lumpur. The Defendants paid the Plaintiff the RM250,000.00 as initial payment. The Developer for the said project is a company known as Fahad Holdings Sdn Bhd (later known as KOF Holdings Sdn Bhd).

(b) RM19,500.00 per month for salary allowance and other benefits for 3 years amounting to RM19,500.00 x 36 months = RM702,000.00.

[3] The Defendants contended that they are only liable to pay under the said Letter of Undertaking provided that their application for a development order to build 165 unit of apartments (11 storey) plus 2 storey of commercial units on the said Land as approved by Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur (DBKL) (B2 p. 3). The approval is a "condition precedent to their liability under the said Letter of Undertaking. The application for the Development Order was to build the said 165 units of apartment plus 2 storey of commercial units was rejected by DBKL vide the Notis Penolakan dated 9 March 2015 (B1 p 1). Therefore, the Defendants claimed that they are not liable to pay the Plaintiff under the said Letter of Undertaking.

[4] The Corporate Information (B1 p 61) of KOF Holdings Sdn Bhd (formerly known as Fahad Holdings Sdn Bhd.) on 8 September 2016 reveals that Ong Boon Hee (DW4) is a Director and shareholder of KOF/FHSB. The 1st Defendant was a Director and shareholder of PTS Properties Sdn Bhd (PTS) (now in liquidation). Both the Defendants were Directors of Yuten Development Sdn Bhd (B1 p 31). The 2nd Defendant is a shareholder (30% shares) and PTS (55% shares) as reflected in B1 p 32.

Evidence Of The Plaintiff

[5] The Plaintiff (PW1 in Encl 54) referred to the Letter of Undertaking and state that the finder's fees of 2.5% of the total gross development value of the project to be paid upon the Sales and Purchase Agreement of the sold units between the Vendor and the Buyers. The deal was between Pihak Berkuasa Kemajuan Pekebun Kecil Perusahaan Getah (Risda) and Fahad Holdings Sdn Bhd for Fahad to build 19 units of villas comprising of 7 units of Type A and 12 units of Type B. Reference is made to Risda's Letter of Intent dated 25 July 2014 (B1 pp 15 - 23). Until and unless the villas are actually sold, the Plaintiff was not entitled to any payment from the Defendants.

[6] In his evidence, the Plaintiff states the mathematical calculation of the 2.5% finder's fee, assuming all the 19 villas were to be built and sold based on the total gross development value (GDV) is RM141,950,000.00 x 2.5% = RM3,548,750.00. After deducting the initial payment of RM250,000.00 made to the Plaint

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top