Back
2023 MarsdenLR 331
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
LOW HAN KOK & ANOR – Appellant
Versus
YAP SIEN TOH & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: WA-22NCvC-718-11/2018]
The court ruled that a party alleging fraud must provide clear particulars, and failure to do so can result in dismissal of claims, affirming the validity of agreements made.
Headnote:In this judgment, the court analyzed the Plaintiffs' claim to nullify the transfer of property on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation, involving Transaction Documents executed in relation to a sale. The court found that key terms of the agreements were upheld and that obligations toward the Purchase Price were confirmed by various documents. The Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, affirming the validity of the agreements and the 1st Defendant's counterclaim allowed for vacant possession of the property. Key issues included whether the Transaction Documents were valid and whether any fraud occurred that would invalidate them. The court emphasized the necessity of pleading specifics when fraud is alleged, ruling that the Plaintiffs had not provided sufficient particulars to substantiate their claims. The interpretation of the agreements, particularly regarding consideration and acknowledgment of receipt of payment, was central to the court's decision. Ultimately, the court ruled that the Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed, and the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was affirmed, with orders for vacant possession granted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs alleged fraud and misrepresentation in property sale. (Para 1 , 2 , 11) |
| 2. defendants rebutted claims with valid agreements and obligations. (Para 16 , 18 , 25) |
| 3. court dismissed claims and upheld validity of defendants' counterclaim. (Para 27 , 28 , 139) |
Introduction
[1] The 1st and 2nd Plaintiffs alleged that they have been deceived to part with their property to the 1st Defendant. They accused that the 2nd to 5th Defendants namely, the solicitor for the 1st Defendant had acted in concert with the 1st Defendant. They, thus, sued the Defendants to nullify the transfer of the Property the 1st Defendant and for exemplary damages. The 1st Defendant, on the other hand, counter-claimed for the vacant possession of the property. After the trial, I have decided in favour of the Defendants and dismissed the Plaintiffs' claim. I have also allowed the 1st Defendant's counterclaim and granted few of the reliefs sought. This is my full judgment for the case.
Brief Facts Of The Case
[2] The 1st and 2nd plaintiffs ("the Plaintiffs") are husband and wife. They are also the former owners of the property central to this suit namely all that piece of property held under the issue document of title GM 3379, Lot 40934, Mukim Petaling, Daerah Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan and bearing the postal address No 19, Jalan Awang Kuning 1, Taman Yarl, OUG Square, 58200 Kuala Lumpur ("the Property"). The 1st defendant is now the registered owner of the Property ("the 1st Defendant"). However, the 1st Defendant has yet to receive the vacant possession of the Property. The Plaintiffs are still occupying the Property.
[3] According to the Plaintiffs, they knew the 1st Defendant through her husband known as Choong Siew Teck ("Choong") ("DW1"). The 1st Defendant through Choong informed the Plaintiffs about her intention to purchase the Property which was mortgaged to Public Bank Berhad at the material time.
[4] The Plaintiffs then offered to sell the Property for a sum of RM1,000,000.00 ("the Purchase Price") to the 1st Defendant and the 1st Defendant had agreed to purchase the Property. The 5th defendant firm was appointed as the solicitor acting for the 1st Defendant ("the 5th Defendant"). The 2nd defendant ("2nd Defendant"), 3rd defendant ("3rd Defendant") and 4th defendant ("4th Defendant") were advocates & solicitors and also partners of the 5th Defendant's firm at the material time (collectively "2nd-5th Defendants"). The Plaintiffs were not represented in the sale and purchase of the Property.
[5] Later, on 9 December 2016, the Plaintiffs went to the 5th Defendant's firm to sign several documents related to the sale and purchase of the Property, namely the Sale & Purchase Agreement ("the SPA"), Power of Attorney ("the PA") and Trust Deed ("Trust Deed") (collectively, "the Transaction Documents").
[6] Later, the 5th Defendant sent a copy of letter dated 2 August 2017 addressed to the 1st Defendant and copied the same letter to the Plaintiffs, informing that the firm has discharged themselves from acting as solicitors for the sale transaction of the Property.
[7] Then, around October 2017, the 1st Defendant and Choong contacted the Plaintiffs and demanded the Plaintiffs to leave the Property because the Property has been transferred to the 1st Defendant.
[8] Dissatisfied and aggrieved with the conduct of the 1st Defendant and Choong, the Plaintiffs lodge a police report on 27 October 2017 and a registrar caveat was entered through the police on the Property in order to avoid any further dealings to take place.
[9] The Plaintiffs then through their solicitors conducted a land search and discovered that the Property has been transferred to the 1st Defendant and subsequently registered under her name.
[10] Aggrieved and prejudiced by the conducts of the Defendants, the Plaintiffs filed this claim ("this Suit") primarily to nullify the transfer to the 1st Defendant and to nullify the registration under
