The court affirmed that a claim for unjust enrichment can stand independently of privity of contract, emphasizing that unjust retention of benefits at another's expense is actionable.

JUDGEMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff ("P") filed an application vide encl 54 ("Enc 54") for the determination of certain preliminary questions of law. Enc 54 was made under O 14A ("O 14A") and/or O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC").

[2] Where applicable, I will refer to the Defendants individually as the 1st Defendant ("D1"), 2nd Defendant ("D2") and 3rd Defendant ("D3"). D1, D2 and D3 are collectively referred to as the "Lalls". The 4th Defendant ("D4") (In Liquidation) is named as a nominal defendant in this suit.

[3] Order 14A enables the Court to "determine any question of law or construction of any document" where it appears to the Court that "such question is suitable for determination without the full trial of the action" and "such determination will finally determine the entire cause or matter or any claim or issue therein". It is designed to expedite the disposal of an action at interlocutory stage in order to save costs and time. (See the Court of Appeal case of Petroleum National Bhd v. Kerajaan Negeri Terengganu & Another Appeal, 2003 MarsdenLR 1685 at 349-351; [2003] 5 AMR 696).

[4] I am satisfied that the questions posed in Enc 54 are questions of law. The said questions of law are a dominant feature of the instant suit. If decided in favour of P, it would effectively determine the entire action. In my view, this suit can properly be disposed of without viva voce evidence or a full trial. I proceeded to hear Enc 54 and answered the questions posed therein in the manner described below.

Previous Striking Out Application By The Lalls

[5] The Lalls contend that this matter should go for full trial. However, the material facts of P's claim are not substantially disputed. The Lalls merely pleaded bare denials in their Defence. They have not specifically raised what are the evidence which is required to be elicited by way of viva voce evidence to warrant a full trial of the matter.

[6] Further, the Lalls are approbating and reprobating. They had previously filed an application to strike out P's claim vide encl 8, which I dismissed. Their appeal against that decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

[7] Having filed the striking out application, which is an implicit admission that this claim can be determined summarily, the Lalls cannot now blow hot and cold, to say that there are triable issues which warrants a full trial of the matter. They have taken the position that this matter is suitable to be disposed off in a summary manner, without the need for a trial. They are now estopped from taking a position that this matter is not suitable to be determined summarily via an O 14A process.

Background Facts

[8] In November 2012, D1 purchased a three storey shop office measuring approximately 11,851.07 square feet, held under title H.S.(D) No 111032, P.T No 32942, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor ("Property") from a public auction held in the Kuala Lumpur High Court at a purchase price of RM700,000 ("Purchase Price"). P avers that this favourable and reduced purchase price was possible due to the abandoned state of the Property at that juncture. In June 2013, D1 transferred the Property to his children, D2 and D3.

[9] The Property is part of a commercial development project comprising 59 units of three-storey shop offices at Pekan Baru Subang ("Project'). The developer of the Project was Kumpulan Bumiklas Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) ("Developer").

[10] The construction of the Project commenced in 1996 but was abandoned in 2004. The Developer was wound up by an order of Court dated 19 November 2007. Consequent upon the winding-up of the Developer, the Project and the Property were left idle between the years 2007 up to 2013.

[11] After the Project had been left abandoned for about 9 years, a Scheme of Arrangement was sanctioned by the High Court on 19 March 2013 ("Scheme"). Pursuant to the Scheme, D4 was appointed as the proverbial 'White Knight' to complete the construction work of the Project at a