The court ruled that a probationary estate agent is prohibited from undertaking estate agency practice, making any agreement for commission void due to illegality under the relevant acts.

[1] The 1st plaintiff is a registered estate agent under the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 (Act 242) (the "Act").

[2] The 2nd plaintiff is a former employee of Sunway City Berhad. He left Sunway City Berhad in 2003 and ventured into the real estate business.

[3] On 25 January 2006, the 2nd plaintiff was registered as a "probationary estate agent" under s 22E of the Act. He remained a "probationary estate agent" until 31 December 2008.

[4] Both the plaintiffs were practising under an estate agency by the name of Oriental Realty.

[5] The defendant is a businessman with Form 5 (SPM) qualification. He has 2 companies, namely, Kenlijaya Engineering Sdn Bhd ('Kenlijaya') and Stargena Sdn Bhd ('Stargena').

[6] While the 2nd plaintiff was still in the employment of Sunway City Berhad and the defendant's company, Kenlijaya, was one of the subcontractors for Sunway City Berhad, the defendant got to know the 2nd plaintiff.

[7] In 2006, after the 2nd plaintiff had become a probationary estate agent under the Act, the 2nd plaintiff contacted the defendant to inform the defendant that he was in the real estate business. He requested the defendant to refer some real estate business to him.

[8] The defendant acceded to the 2nd plaintiff's request. The defendant referred 2 properties to the 2nd plaintiff and engaged the latter to sell them for the defendant. The properties were a semi-detached house in Klang situated at 16, Jalan Cokmar 2, Mutiara, Bukit Raja, Klang Selangor and an apartment in Subang Jaya situated at Blok A-5-3, Jalan USJ 6/2L, 47610 Subang Jaya Selangor. The 2nd plaintiff sold both the properties for the defendant in July 2006 and July 2007, respectively. The defendant paid to the 2nd plaintiff the commission which was agreed upon between them in respect of the sale of the 2 properties.

[9] In on around November 2006 the defendant came across an opportunity to make money. He knew there was a piece of land that belonged to TNB and that it was for sale.

[10] He then approached the 2nd plaintiff to secure a purchaser. The defendant promised to pay the 2nd plaintiff commission upon the sale of the land. Based on his earlier dealings with the defendant, the 2nd plaintiff trusted the defendant.

[11] The 2nd plaintiff approached one of his big corporate clients, namely, Sunway Group of Companies, to purchase the land at RM 250.00 psf. The 2nd plaintiff had discussions with the Chief Operating Officer of Sunway City Berhad, Mr. Ho Hong Sang ('Mr. Ho') who was also a director of Sunway Damansara Berhad.

[12] He also wrote 2 letters and an email to Mr. Ho. Both these letters were addressed to Mr. Ho, informing him, that the 'asking price for the Land' is RM 250.00 psf (which was subsequently reduced to RM 210.00 psf) and that it is on a first come first serve basis. The email was a follow-up to the 'proposal'. This is basically the essence of the 'proposal', which the 2nd plaintiff wrote to Mr. Ho.

[13] After the negotiations had reached RM 210.00 psf (page 36 Bundle B) the 2nd plaintiff approached the defendant and asked the defendant to approach Tan Sri Dato' Seri Dr Jeffery Cheah ("Tan Sri Jeffery Cheah") directly to close the deal which the defendant did and the defendant concluded the deal with Tan Sri Jeffery Cheah at the price of RM 200.00 psf and the defendant made a profit of RM 3,000,000.00.

[14] However, the defendant, subsequently, refused to pay the full commission to the 2nd plaintiff. The defendant contended that the 2nd plaintiff was not entitled to be paid the full commission because he did not seal the deal with Sunway.

[15] The defendant merely offered to pay the 2nd plaintiff what the 2nd plaintiff contended w