The agent's entitlement to fees is upheld despite the lack of formal appointment, emphasizing the principles of agency, estoppel, and effective cause in contract law.

[1] This is an appeal by the appellant/plaintiff against the decision of the learned High Court Judge ('the trial judge') made on 25 April 2018 dismissing its claim against the respondent/defendant with costs of RM35,000.00 subject to allocator fee.

[2] We shall for purposes of this appeal refer to the parties as they were referred to in the High Court. Having heard and considered the respective parties' submissions in this appeal, we allowed the appeal. The reasons for our decision are set out below.

Background Facts

[3] The plaintiff is a licensed real estate agency providing, among others, services of a real estate agency. The defendant is a property development company providing, among others, property management services and property management.

[4] The plaintiff's claim is for payment of its professional fees for the sum of RM6,237,792.00 for work done and services rendered to the defendant in relation to the conclusion of a Joint Venture between the defendant and Hap Seng Land Sdn Bhd ('Hap Seng') for a plot of land known as Plot 5A in a development known as the Kuala Lumpur Metropolis ('KL Metropolis').

[5] The "Common Chronology of Facts" leading to the filing of the plaintiff's claim are as follows:

[5.1] On or around late 2013, the Chief Executive Officer of the plaintiff, Previndran Singhe ('Previn') (SP5) was approached by the Group Managing Director of defendant and TTD1 KL Metropolis Sdn Bhd, Sheikh Mohd Faliq Sheikh Mohamad Nasimuddin Kamal ('Faliq') (SP4) to market for the purpose of sale, various plots of development land and en-bloc sale of office buildings within the KL Metropolis.

[5.2] Previn was told to liaise with the defendant's Chief Operating Officer, Jason Hendroff ('Hendroff') (SD3) on matters relating to various individual plots in KL Metropolis.

[5.3] Hendroff's email dated 10 December 2013 to Previn, among others, provided the KL Metropolis masterplan to the plaintiff (Common Core Bundle ('CCB')/247-248).

[5.4] There were subsequent chain of emails following Hendroff's email dated 10 December 2013, namely:

(a) Previn's email to Hendroff dated 17 December 2013 (CCB/153-156);

(b) Previn's email dated 20 December 2013 to one Yuslina Yusof and Hendroff (CCB/152); and

(c) Previn's email to Yuslina Yusof copied to Hendroff dated 1 January 2014 (CCB/157-160) attaching Previn's email to Hendroff dated 17 December 2013.

[5.5] The plaintiff issued their "letter of appointment dated 3 January 2014" to the defendant for the 'Land and En-Bloc Sales (sic)' of the various plots of component properties within KL Metropolis. The said letter was not executed by the defendant (CCB/71-73).

[5.6] Hendroff issued an e-mail to Previn dated 3 February 2014 (CCB/78-79) with regard to Plots 1, 2 and 3 of KL Metropolis.

[5.7] The defendant issued an 'Ad-Hoc' Letter of Appointment for one year dated 5 February 2014 to the plaintiff as Agent to sell various plots of development land and 'En-Block (sic) Sale' of office buildings within KL Metropolis (CCB/74-77).

[5.8] Hendroff issued an email to Previn dated 7 February 2014 (CCB/80-81) forwarding the pre-comp with regard to Plots 1, 2 and 3 of KL Metropolis.

[5.9] Yuslina Yusof issued an email to Previn dated 18 February 20