Back
2011 MarsdenLR 518
HIGH COURT MALAYA KUALA LUMPUR
DATO BADARUDIN ABD KHALID & ORS – Appellant
Versus
MBF PROPERTY SERVICES SDN BHD & ORS – Respondent
[Civil Action No: S1-22-484-2005]
Plaintiffs failed to meet the burden of proof necessary to establish claims of misrepresentation, conspiracy, and illegality, leading to dismissal of their action as statute-barred.
Headnote:(A) Contracts - Misrepresentation, Breach of Contract, Illegality, Public Policy, Conspiracy - Plaintiffs claimed fraudulent misrepresentation and illegality by Defendants in condominium project - Court found Plaintiffs failed to prove claims under the Limitation Act 1953 - Evidence showed claims time-barred. (Paras 50, 54, 66)
(B) Conspiracy - To establish conspiracy, a combination to effect an unlawful purpose must be shown - Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence for conspiracy claims. (Paras 70, 73)
Facts of the case:
Plaintiffs purchased condominium units from developer, alleging misrepresentation and conspiracy by Defendants related to property quality and financing plans. The Plaintiffs started action in April 2005, claiming they were misled into purchasing defective property. (Paras 1-11, 23-24)
Findings of Court:
Court held that Plaintiffs' claims were dismissed as they failed to prove necessary elements, and their action was statute-barred. The alleged misrepresentations lacked support. (Paras 50-82)
Issues: Key issues involved whether Defendants made misrepresentations, if the project arrangement was illegal, whether conspiracy existed, and if action was time-barred. (Paras 12-13)
Ratio Decidendi: Court ruled that Plaintiffs must prove claims beyond reasonable doubt; fails to do so leads to dismissal of case. Timing of action based on knowledge of defects was critical. (Paras 50, 82)
Result: Claims dismissed with costs of RM30,000 to the Second Defendant.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiffs' identity and claims against defendants. (Para 1 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. liability dismissal based on evidence. (Para 2 , 3) |
[1] The Plaintiffs in this action who were purchasers of units of condominium in a development known as PD Marina International Resort, Phase 3, Bay View Villas, Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan, commenced this action against all the Defendants for misrepresentation and or breach of contract, illegality and or an arrangement which was contrary to public policy and or conspiracy to injure.
[2] After giving full consideration to the evidence, both documentary as well as testimonial, and the submissions by the learned Counsels for the respective parties I find that the Plaintiffs had failed to prove their claim on the standard required by the law pertaining to the their pleaded case as stated in their Statement of Claim ("SOC"). Accordingly I dismissed the Plaintiffs' claims against the First and Second Defendants with costs.
[3] The Plaintiffs being dissatisfied with the said decision now appeal to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the said decision.
The Parties
Plaintiffs
[4] The 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th, 12th, 13th, 14th, 17th, 18th, 19th, 21st, 23rd, 24th, 25th, 26th, 28th, 29th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 34th, 35th, 36th, 37th, 38th and 40th Plaintiffs ("the Plaintiffs") we re purchasers of units of condominium in a development project under taken by the deve loper Cempaka Mewah (In Liquidation) known as PD Marina International Resort Phase 3, Bay View Villa, Port Dickson, Negeri Sembilan ("the Project"). All the Plaintiffs mentioned in this paragraph have entered into sale and purchase agreements with Cempaka Mewah. (Exhibit P4 page 911 - 935 of Document "E").
[5] The 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th Plaintiffs withdrew their claims against the Second Defendant.
[6] No evidence that the 4th, 5th, 15th, 16th, 22nd, 30th, 39th, 41st and 42nd Plaintiffs entered into agreements with Cempaka Mewah ("Remaining Plaintiff").
