JUDGMENT

Avinder Singh Gill Ranjit Singh JC:

Decision On Enclosure 14

[1] The Defendants apply by Enclosure ('Encl') 14 to strike out the Plaintiffs' Writ and Statement of Claim pursuant to O 18 r 19 of the Rules of ('ROC') 2012 and/or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court .

[2] The Defendants contend that the whole premise of the plaintiffs' Claim revolves around the issue of the purchase and ownership of a unit known as Parcel A-13-3 built on a project known as Project Kiara [Tower A] ['the Unit']. The 3rd Defendant, Monday-Off Sdn Bhd (in Liquidation) ['MODSB'], undertook this development.

[3] The Defendants contend that the issue of ownership had been resolved by reference to the "Senarai Pembelian oleh Pelikuidasi Bersama bagi MODSB".

[4] The Defendants filed supporting Affidavits and Affidavits in Reply in Encl 15, Encl 18 and Encl 19, whereas the plaintiffs filed its response in Encl 17.

[5] The parties filed their respective Submissions in Encl 20, 23, 25 and 27.

[6] This decision was originally scheduled for delivery on 24 September 2025, but at the parties' request, it was deferred twice to allow them an opportunity to pursue a resolution. As no settlement has materialised to date, and to avoid further delay, this Court now proceeds to deliver its decision on Encl 14, as follows.

The Facts Leading To The Suit And This Application

[7] The Plaintiffs allege that in 2012, they were introduced to the 1st Defendant, who needed funds for a development project undertaken by MODSB.

[8] At a meeting, the 1st Defendant offered to sell a unit to the plaintiffs, representing that although the market price was RM1,500,000.00, the unit would be sold to them for RM1,000,000.00.

[9] The 1st Defendant proposed that RM700,000.00 be paid to him and the 2nd Defendant as a friendly loan, and RM300,000.00 be paid as a booking fee and partial payment of the purchase price.

[10] Pursuant thereto, the plaintiffs made payments totaling RM1,000,000.00 via cheques to the defendants (RM700,000.00) and MODSB (RM300,000.00).

[11] On 14 November 2012, MODSB issued a letter confirming the reduced purchase price and recognising the RM300,000.00 as 20% of the full price as stated in the letter. (It is odd that this is stated to be 20% because the purchase price was RM1,000,000.00, the amount paid should have been 30%).

[12] A friendly loan agreement for RM700,000.00 was executed the same day, and the defendants' solicitor prepared, and the parties executed, the Sale and Purchase Agreement on 20 November 2012.

[13] The plaintiffs claim they were assured that these documents conferred them with rights over the Unit. However, by 2019, vacant possession had still not been delivered. It is alleged that, at this time, the 1st Defendant undertook to pay RM200,000.00 as Liquidated Damages for Late Delivery, if the plaintiffs did not terminate the SPA.

[14] In 2021, the plaintiffs discovered that MODSB had been wound up, and their names were not listed as owners of the Unit. They allege that they were defrauded; that the scheme [the friendly loan to the 1st and 2nd Defendants, and the payment to MODSB] was dishonest and illegal; and that the defendants acted dishonestly and in concert to misrepresent the transaction as a genuine sale.

[15] The Plaintiffs further plead negligent misrepresentation; knowing receipt; dishonest assistance; and the existence of a constructive trust arising from the defendants' acceptance and misuse of the funds.

[16] The Plaintiffs plead that they had entered what they believed to be a valid and enforceable contract with the defendants, and that the payments made pursuant thereto were rendered void under a mistake of law.

[17] Accordingly, the plaintiffs seek restitution of the said sums on equitable grounds and under the doctrine of unjust enrichment. Further, the Plaintiffs plead that the 1st and 2nd Defendants, in their capacity as directors and fiduciaries, breached their duties owed to the plaintiffs. As a result of the defendants