JUDGMENT

Noor Hayati Mat J:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by Lim Yeon Hon, Appellant/Defendant, on the decision of the Session Court Judge (SCJ), after a full trial, allowing the Respondents'/Plaintiffs' claim in para 27(g) and (h) of the Statement of Claim (SOC) with costs of RM8,000.00.

[2] Paragraph 27(g) is an alternatif prayer to para 27(a)-(f), reproduced below the whole para 27 for easy reference:

"27. Dengan ini Plaintif-Plaintif menuntut terhadap defendan seperti berikut:

(a) Kerugian Pertama; sebanyak RM30,000.00 kepada plaintif

(b) Kerugian Kedua; sebanyak RM90,000.00 kepada plaintif

(c) Kerugian Ketiga; sebanyak RM90,000.00 kepada plaintif

(d) Kerugian sebanyak RM45,000.00 kepada 4th Plaintiff;

(e) Kerugian sebanyak RM45,000.00 kepada 5th Plaintiff;

(f) Jumlah kerugian plaintif-plaintif bersama terhadap pembiayaan fi guaman dalam perjanjian jual beli sebanyak RM3,179.00;

Atau

(g) Secara alternatif kepada para 27(a) sehingga (f) di sini membayar RM303,179.00 kepada akaun peguam cara plaintif-plaintif di "Bernard Francis (Client Account)";

(h) Faedah ke atas kerugian pada kadar 5% setahun dari tarikh tindakan ini ke tarikh realisasi;

(i) Kos tindakan ini; dan

(j) Relief lanjutan dan sampingan yang dianggap adil dan suai manafaat bagi plaintif-plaintif oleh mahkamah yang mulia ini."

[3] After hearing both parties, perused the Appeal Records, and read the submissions filed, I dismissed the appeal with costs.

[4] Appellant now appeals to the Court of Appeal, and below are my grounds of judgment.

[5] Parties are referred to as they were in the Court below.

Salient Facts

[6] Both parties were former colleagues and knew each other through past acquaintances.

[7] In January 2019, the defendant approached the 1st Plaintiff (P1) and informed him of the opportunity to buy apartments at Damai Vista for as low as RM300,000.00 per unit if purchased in cash.

[8] Acting on the defendant's recommendation, P1 agreed to purchase the apartments and persuaded the other plaintiffs (P2-P5) to invest in buying the suggested apartments. P2-P5 decided to rely on P1 to handle the transaction with the defendant.

[9] Subsequently, the Plaintiffs were instructed by the defendant to attend Messrs Toh, Liew & Partners to sign a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA), which was allegedly prepared and witnessed by a solicitor, Ong Kar Voi (SP6).

[10] The SPA between the Plaintiffs with the developer, Euroland and Development Sdn Bhd (EDSB), was then allegedly executed. Hence, the plaintiffs made payments to the defendant, as tabulated in para 13 of the SOC, amounting to RM303,179.00, including legal fees. Defendant acknowledged receipt of the payments but subsequently evaded the plaintiffs on any updates on the purchase of the units of apartments.

[11] The Plaintiffs later found out that EDSB had no knowledge of the SPA between them. EDSB asserted that they had not appointed or authorised any personnel or company to receive payments on their behalf. EDSB did not recognise the purported receipt produced by the defendant as its official receipt.

[12] The Plaintiffs now claim that the defendant falsely represented to them, inducing them to pay a total of RM303,179.00 for the purchase of the apartments.

[13] The SCJ had elected to allow the claim to the extent that the defendant were to return the money paid with interest, and her reasons were as follows:

(1) The SPA transaction cannot now be performed by both parties.

(2) There is no defect in the Plaintiffs' SOC, as the misrepresentation was sufficiently pleaded and supported by the evidence of the witnesses.

(3) The Defendant's duty of care extended to P2-P5, as they made payments to the defendant, which was not denied.

(4) Defendant had a duty of care towards the plaintiffs when he made representations to sell the units and had received money from all the Plaintiffs, inducing them to enter into the SPA.

(5) Plaintiffs succeeded in proving, on the balance of probability, that defendant made a representation to P1, leading the