Back
2025 MarsdenLR 2259
HIGH COURT MALAYA PENANG
TAN SOW MOOI – Appellant
Versus
RAINBOW PARADISE BEACH RESORT BERHAD & ANOR – Respondent
[Civil Appeal No: PA-12BNCVC-15-06-2023]
An appellate court can intervene if a trial court's decision is 'plainly wrong,' particularly regarding errors in evaluating evidence or applying legal principles related to trespass and nuisance.
Headnote:(A) National Land Code 1965 - Section 232(1)(a) - Strata Titles Act 1985 - Section 5(2) - Nature of lease rights in a resort setting amid COVID-19 - Plaintiff had a 90-year lease on a unit in Defendants' resort; during pandemic, Defendants required her to vacate, converting the resort to a quarantine center. Sessions Court dismissed her claim for possession and damages. Appellate Court intervened, finding the Sessions Court's decision 'plainly wrong' and failing to evaluate claims of trespass and nuisance adequately. The Plaintiff was denied her right to 'peaceably and quietly possess' her unit as stipulated by law. (Paras 1-70)
(B) Appeal - Standard of review - An appellate court may only interfere when the trial court's findings are 'plainly wrong,' based on substantial errors in evidence appreciation or misapplication of law. The appellate court found multiple fundamental errors in the Sessions Court's regard for Plaintiff's lease rights and evidence presented. (Paras 4-12, 36-70)
Facts of the case:
The Plaintiff, residing permanently at a resort, was forced to vacate her unit without reasonable notice when the resort was converted into a quarantine center. She sought legal remedies for trespass and nuisance after her claims were dismissed in the lower court. (Paras 1-3, 22)
Findings of Court:
The appellate court identified that the Sessions Court had fundamentally failed to recognize the legal ramifications of the Plaintiff's long-term lease and did not adequately assess the claims for trespass and nuisance based on proper legal standards. (Paras 36-69)
Issues: The main issues were whether the Session Court properly analyzed the Plaintiff's lease rights in the context of trespass and nuisance, and whether its dismissal of the claims constituted a 'plainly wrong' decision. (Paras 24-39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Plaintiff's 90-year lease entitled her to enjoyment of her unit without disturbance and that the Sessions Court failed to address this legal prerequisite, thus justifying the appellate intervention. (Paras 36-66)
Result: Appeal allowed. Damages awarded, and the Defendants ordered to facilitate the return of possession and restitution of charges paid by the Plaintiff. (Paras 69-70)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff's long-term lease rights established. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. appellate intervention under 'plainly wrong' test. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. sessions court did not evaluate evidence properly. (Para 36 , 37 , 38 , 39) |
| 4. unjust enrichment misapplied by sessions court. (Para 40 , 41) |
| 5. lease agreement's effects were disregarded. (Para 42 , 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 6. (Para 48 , 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 7. dispute over notice delivery needs evidence evaluation. (Para 54 , 55 , 56) |
| 8. plaintiff's appeal is meritorious and granted. (Para 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70) |
Prelusion
[1] The Plaintiff (P) has a long-term lease over her suite in the Defendants' resort. She is not just a resort guest who stays at the resort for a holiday. She is a permanent resident at the resort.
[2] When the COVID-19 pandemic hit the country, the Defendants decided to convert their resort into a quarantine centre. When the Defendants did that, for some reason, they had to get P to move out of her suite. P asserts that she was given very little time to move out. She nevertheless moved out.
[3] P sued the Defendants to get back possession of her suite and for damages suffered. The Sessions Court dismissed her claim. She appeals to the High Court.
The Law On Appellate Intervention — The 'Plainly Wrong' Test
[4] It is vital, in this post-trial Appeal, to review the law on appellate intervention. An appellate Court should only interfere to disturb the findings of the first-instance Court (here: the Sessions Court) if the Sessions Court was "plainly wrong".
[5] Our Federal Court, in Ng Hoo Kui & Anor v. Wendy Tan Lee Peng & Ors ; [2020] 10 CLJ 1 , through the written grounds of Zabariah Mohd Yusof FCJ, comprehensively expounded the genesis of the "plainly wrong" principle, through its development over the years, into its current meaning.
[6]Ng Hoo Kui (supra) propounded that the primary "plainly wrong" principle includes the following non-exhaustive elaborative tenets, and I apply them here-
(1) The Sessions Court's judgment is "plainly wrong" if it was arrived at through "no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence": citing UEM Group Bhd (previously known as UEM Group Bhd v. Genisys Integrated Engineers Pte Ltd & Anor ; [2018] MLJ (Supp) 363 ; .
(2) This phrase of the "lack of judicial appreciation of the evidence" encompasses these three errors-
(i) critical factual finding which has no basis in evidence (that is, findings not based on the evidence);
(ii) demonstrable misunderstanding of the relevant evidence (that is, misunderstanding the evidence);
(iii) demonstrable failure to consider the relevant evidence (that is, failure to consider the evidence).
(3) The Sessions Court's judgment is "plainly wrong" if it was arrived at through a "material error of law": following Henderson v. Foxworth Investments Ltd [2014] 1 WLR 2600 (UKSC).
(4) The Sessions Court's decision is "plainly wrong" if it "could not reasonably be explained or justified", making it a decision "which no reasonable judge could have reached": citing Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petra v. Petra Perdana Berhad & Another Case ; [2018] 2 CLJ 641 .
(5) An appellate Court is to evaluate whether the Sessions Court's decision was "reasonably made": para 79 of Ng Hoo Kui (supra).
[7] The "plainly wrong" principle, however, is not intended to be used as a catch-all method to replace the Sessions Court's decision with my own (the appellate Court's) decision, on the facts of the case. The Federal Court in Ng Hoo Kui (supra) puts it this way-
[76] What is pertinent is that, the 'plainly wrong' test is not intended to be used by an appellate Court as a means to substitute its own decision for that of the trial Court on the facts.
[78] Hence following this Court's ruling in Tengku Dato' Ibrahim Petra Tengku Indra Petraan appellate Court should not interfere with the factual findings of a trial judge unless it was satisfied that the decision of the trial judge was 'plainly wrong' where in ar
