Back
2014 MarsdenLR 2502
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
TAN SRI HALIM SAAD – Appellant
Versus
TAN SRI NOR MOHAMED YAKCOP & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Suit No: 22NCC-339-04-2013]
The absence of fraudulent inducement negates claims of misrepresentation under the Contracts Act, and claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act.
Headnote:(A) Contracts Act 1950 - Section 19(2) - Limitation Act 1953 - Fraudulent misrepresentation - Plaintiff's claims against defendants for breach of agreements dismissed as unsustainable; claims were time-barred, and the essential element of fraud was found absent due to lack of inducement. (Paras 1, 6, 42, 64)
(B) Strike out of claim - Defendants sought to strike out plaintiff's claim on grounds it was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process - Court emphasized the necessity for factual disputes to be resolved through trial evidence. (Paras 5, 64)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff accuses the defendants of fraudulently inducing him into exiting their groups under the guise of agreements, claiming entitlement to significant compensations stemming from these arrangements. However, he alleged fraud became apparent post-fulfillment of a separate agreement involving partial compensation of RM165 million.
Findings of Court:
The court establishes that a binding contract was not created due to lack of consent and agreements; further, plaintiff's claims were held to be time-barred, contradicting any reliance on fraudulent misrepresentation.
Issues: Determination of whether agreements were reached, the authority of the defendants, the plausibility of claimed fraudulent inducements, and whether claims were time-barred.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the absence of evidence demonstrating inducement by the first defendant negated the fraud claim, and the 2001 and 2003 agreements lacked binding effect; actions begun years after the limitation period expired were deemed non-viable.
Result: Plaintiff's claim struck out.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fraudulent inducement to enter contracts. (Para 1 , 2) |
[1] The plaintiff in this action claims, inter alia that the 2nd defendant and the 3rd defendant through their agent, the 1st defendant, had induced the plaintiff to exit both the Renong & UEM Group (the groups) in consideration of the payments stated in the 2001 Agreement. It is alleged that representations made by the 1st defendant were fraudulent as the defendants never had any intention of performing the 2001 Agreement.
[2] Further and/or in the alternative the plaintiff claims that his consent to enter into the 2001 and 2003 Agreements was caused by the fraud of the defendants. The 2nd defendant and/or the 3rd defendant entered into the said agreements with intent to deceive and/or induce the plaintiff into entering both agreements. The plaintiff claims that he is entitled to insist that the 2001 and/ or 2003 Agreements be performed and that he be put in a position that he would have been if the representations had been true.
