The court determined that a claim for unjust enrichment can be pursued where prior proceedings did not encompass the same cause of action, ruling on distinct criteria without privity of contract.

JUDGMENT

Quay Chew Soon JC:

Introduction

[1] The 1st to 3rd Defendants ("Defendants") filed an application vide Enclosure 8 ("Encl 8") to strike out the Plaintiff's (P") Statement of Claim ("SOC"). Encl 8 was made under O 18 r 19(1)(a), (b), (c) and/or (d) of the Rules of 2012 ("ROC") and under the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. I dismissed Encl 8. These are the grounds of my decision.

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

Background

[3] In November 2012, D1 purchased a three storey shop office measuring approximately 11,851.07 square feet, held under title HS(D) No 111032, PT 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.

[4] 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").

[5] 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. After the Developer's winding-up, the Project and the Property were left idle between the years 2007 up to 2013.

[6] After the Project was abandoned for approximately 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 RM58.60 per square foot.

[7] 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'. P provided the requisite financing to rehabilitate and complete the Project, which included the Property. P avers that its involvement for the funding of the Project was necessary for D4 to carry out its obligation as the 'White Knight', because D4 was a relatively new construction company without the requisite financial muscle to complete the rehabilitation of the Project on its own.

[8] The projected top up construction sum in relation to the Property was RM694,472.70. This construction cost was based on 11,851.07 (ie the area of the Property) multiplied by RM58.60 per square foot.

[9] 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'.

[10] Pursuant to the Scheme, D4 and/or P would acquire the rights to purchase the Non-Participating Units from the Non-Participating Purchasers at a purchase consideration of RM1.10 for every RM1.00 paid.

[11] On 12 August 2014, D4 and P completed the rehabilitation of the Project including the Property, and obtained a Certificate of Completion and Compliance ("CCC") from Majlis Bandaraya Shah Alam.

[12] At all material times, the Defendants were aware of the rehabilitation and construction of the Project and the Property carried out by D4 and P. D2 and D3, having failed to comply with the terms of the Scheme, were declared as Non-Participating Purchasers in November 2014. The Property belonging to D2 and D3 was declared as a Non-Participating Unit.

[13] Thereafter, P co