Lack of privity does not preclude a claim for unjust enrichment; plaintiff successfully recovers funds for construction costs despite prior judicial decisions.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] The Plaintiff ("P") filed an application vide encl 9 ("Enc 9") for the determination of certain preliminary questions of law. Enc 9 was made under O 14A ("0.14A") and/or O 33 r 2 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC ").

[2] O 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 pp 349-351).

[3] I am satisfied that the questions posed in Enc 9 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.

[4] The 1st Defendant ("D1") agreed to this action being disposed of via an O 14A process. The 2nd Defendant ("D2") (In Liquidation) is named as a nominal defendant in this suit. I proceeded to hear Enc 9 and answered the questions posed therein in the manner described below.

Background

[5] On 30 May 1997, D1 purchased a three storey shop office measuring approximately 4,950.30 square feet held under title HS(D) No 111016, PT No 32925, Pekan Baru Subang, Daerah Petaling, Selangor ("Property") at a purchase price of RM440.000.

[6] 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 one Kumpulan Bumiklas Sdn Bhd (In Liquidation) ("Developer").

[7] The construction of the Project commenced in 1996, but was abandoned in 2004. Although the Project was uncompleted in 2004, for reasons unknown to P, the title to the Property was subdivided and subsequently transferred to D1 on 10 July 2001.

[8] The Developer was wound up by an order of Court dated 19 November 2007. Following the Developer's winding-up, the Project and the Property were left idle between the years 2007 up to 2013.

[9] 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, D2 was appointed as the proverbial 'White Knight' to complete the construction work of the Project at RM58.60 per square foot.

[10] The funding requirements for the formulation of the Scheme and construction work of the Project was provided by P. In the Scheme, P was named as the 'White Knight's Funder'.

[11] P provided the requisite financing to rehabilitate and complete the Project, which included the Property. P avers that its involvement in the funding of the Project was necessary in order for D2 to carry out its obligation as the 'White Knight'. This is because D2 was a relatively new construction company without the requisite financial muscle to complete the rehabilitation of the Project on its own.

[12] The projected top up construction sum in relation to the Property was RM290,087.58. This construction cost was based on 4,950.30 square feet (ie the area of the Property) multiplied by RM58.60 per square foot.

[13] Under the Scheme, the purchasers of units in the Project had to comply with the criteria below:

(a) pay the construction cost (top-up sum) for their particular unit within the stipulated timeframe; or

(b) for units in which the ownership remained unverified by the liquidators of the Developer, obtain a Court order confirming their ownership of the same;

failing which these purchasers would be declared as 'Non-Participating Purchasers'. And their units would be declared as 'Non-Participating Units'.

[14] Pursuant to the Scheme, D2 and/or P would acquire t