Estoppel may apply when a party acts under a belief created by another party's conduct, even amidst technical breaches of law.

FACTS

The defendant applied to strike out the writ and statement of claim pursuant to O 18 r 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules of the High Court 1980 (the RHC). The learned Senior Assistant Registrar (SAR) after hearing arguments granted the order. This is the plaintiff's appeal against that order. On 4.11.99 I heard full arguments and allowed the appeal with costs. The defendant has since filed a notice of appeal against my said oral decision.

FINDINGS OF THE COURT

At a public auction, the plaintiff did successfully bid for the purchase of a property in Kuala Lumpur. He then paid 10% deposit. He had an agreed period of 90 days within which to pay the balance. Attached to the Proclamation of Sale which was exhibited, were the conditions of sale and condition 7 reads as follows:

"7. The balance of the purchase money shall be paid in by the Purchaser within ninety (90) days from the date of the sale to the Senior Assistant Registrar, High Court, Kuala Lumpur by Bank Draft. If the Purchaser fails to comply with this Condition, the deposit shall be forfeited to the Plaintiff unless an agreement to extend the time is obtained from the Plaintiff. Upon getting the consent to forward it to the Senior Assistant Registrar for approval."

Since there was a caveat on the said property the transfer could not be effected. However the learned SAR granted an extension of time sought. On 27.6.97 I dismissed the present plaintiff's application for an injunction to restrain the defendant from auctioning the said property on the basis that the consent of the then registered owner of the property was not obtained nor was the then owner given notice of the said extension. An appeal by the plaintiff to the Court of Appeal against this decision was dismissed with costs. It is not in dispute that both the plaintiff and the defendant carried on as if the extension given was valid. The subsequent conduct of the defendant led the plaintiff into believing that the said property would be his upon payment of the full sum. It is also a fact that upon the extension being granted by the Court on the application of the defendant, the plaintiff, with full knowledge of the defendant, entered into possession of the said property, renovated the said property and began to live therein. The plaintiff also settled the quit rent and assessment as of 1993.

Another very relevant factor that I have to consider in this case is that the solicitors for the defendant, Messrs Soo Thien Meng & Sharizat, also acted for the plaintiff in respect of the completion of the sale and also acted for the third party financiers, Bank Bumiputra Bhd, which granted the loan for the completion of the sale.

It is also a fact that just about one month after the auction sale, Bank Bumiputra Bhd approved the housing loan to the plaintiff on 1.9.93 and on 11.10.94 the loan amount was increased. It is also a fact that the defendant had written to the plaintiff requesting the plaintiff to pay interest for the period between the successful bid and the payment of the full purchase price. It is also a fact that the same solicitors then still acting as agents for the defendant and also as solicitors for Bank Bumiputra Bhd, invited the plaintiff to execute the charge documents in favour of Bank Bumiputra Bhd and that it was at this stage that the defendant had asked the plaintiff to pay the interest earlier referred to. The plaintiff then paid over to the solicitors for the defendant the differential sum amounting to RM24,400.00. The plaintiff continued paying both the assessments and quit rents up to 1996. The defendant had terminated the sale and purchase agreement. The plaintiff has sued for specific performance of the agreement and has also prayed for damages and costs. There is also an alternative prayer which for the purposes of this appeal I need not go into.

In so far as this appeal is concerned, I need not have to go into the merits of the case. I am satisfied that the plaintiff has raised