A Settlement Agreement is enforceable unless proven voidable due to duress or undue influence, with the burden of proof on the party alleging such claims.

JUDGMENT

[Enclosures 1, 11 And 15]

Leong Wai Hong JC:

Introduction

[1] Heav'n has no Rage, like Love to Hatred turn'd, Nor Hell a Fury, like a Woman scorn'd.

- The Mourning Bride by the English playwright William Congreve, 1697.

[2] Such is the warning to all men. The converse is equally true as can be seen from this case before me, where a man has filed an action against a lady for the return of a luxury suite in an upscale development in Kuala Lumpur called Pavilion Suites.

[3] The plaintiff filed an Originating Summons dated 10 January 2024 (encl 1) ("OS") against the defendant to enforce the breach of a Settlement Agreement dated 19 January 2023 ("Settlement Agreement"). A copy of the Settlement Agreement can be seen in encl 2, supporting affidavit of the plaintiff dated 10 January 2024 identified as exh PCH-1.

[4] In response, the defendant filed an application dated 6 March 2024 (encl 11) to disqualify Messrs Ong, Ric & Partners from acting as solicitors for the plaintiff. The defendant also filed an application dated 13 March 2024 (encl 15) to convert the OS into a Writ Action.

[5] In the Settlement Agreement, the defendant acknowledged that a property was bought by the plaintiff, that she is holding the said property on trust for the plaintiff, and agreed to transfer the said property back to the plaintiff if she fails to pay the plaintiff RM1,647,000.00 by way of two instalments ("Settlement Sum").

[6] The defendant only paid RM940,000.00, leaving a balance sum of RM707,000.00 unpaid.

[7] The plaintiff, thus, filed the OS for an order to compel the defendant to transfer the property back to the plaintiff.

[8] On 14 May 2024, I heard the OS and made certain orders. The orders I made were:

i. A declaration declaring the defendant has breached cls 4 and 6 of the Settlement Agreement dated 19 January 2023;

ii. A Specific Performance Order be given in accordance to cl 8 of the Settlement Agreement, to require the defendant to sign all the transactional documents to transfer the property bearing the postal address at No. 48-06, Pavilion Suites Kuala Lumpur, No. 166, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur, registered under the grant number of 79872, and also known as Lot 20027 Seksyen 57, Bandar Kuala Lumpur, Wilayah Persekutuan Kuala Lumpur ("the said property"), in favour of the plaintiff within 14 days from the date of Judgment, as the consequence of the breach of the terms of the Settlement Agreement;

iii. The plaintiff to refund RM940,000.00 to the defendant within 7 business days from the date the plaintiff is registered as the owner of the property.

iv. Costs of RM10,000.00 to be deducted from the RM940,000.00 and paid to the plaintiff.

[9] On 14 May 2024, I had also:

i. Dismissed an application by the defendant to disqualify Messrs Ong, Ric & Partners from acting as solicitors for the plaintiff with no order as to costs (encl 11); and

ii. Dismissed an application by the defendant to convert the OS into a Writ Action with no order as to costs (encl 15).

[10] The plaintiff, on 20 May 2024, has appealed to the Court of Appeal against my three orders. These are my grounds of judgment for all three enclosures.

Facts Of The Case

[11] The defendant, a lady by the name of Tan Li Sin, contends that the plaintiff, a man by the name of Pang Chow Huat, and her, were in a romantic relationship since 2012. This is denied by the plaintiff, who contends that they only had a close relationship at a personal and business level.

[12] The plaintiff contends that, on 28 December 2020, he had reached an agreement with the defendant, whereby the plaintiff bought a residential suite with a postal address of No. 48-06, Pavilion Suites Kuala Lumpur, No. 166, Jalan Bukit Bintang, 55100 Kuala Lumpur ["Pavilion Suites"], which was registered in the name of the defendant, subject to the following conditions:

i. The defendant was only allowed to use the Pavilion Suites as her personal residence; and

ii. No one can access it without the permission of the plaintiff.

[13] On