Aliza Sulaiman J:

GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

Introduction

[1]Four applications were disposed by the Court on 20.2.2025; two each by the Plaintiffs and the Defendants. Following the pursuit of two appeals by the Plaintiffs, these Grounds of Judgment pertain to the decision by this Court in –

(a)allowing the Defendants’ application in encl. 10 whereby prayer

(b)was allowed i.e. Messrs. Christina Chia Law Chambers (‘CCLC’) is not allowed to continue to represent the Plaintiffs in this action in its entirety; and

(c)dismissing the Plaintiffs’ application in encl. 35 for the determination of a question of law or construction of documents, which if answered in the affirmative, would result in the declaratory order as prayed in subparagraph 29(b) of the Statement of Claim dated 24.8.2023 (‘SoC’) to be allowed.

The Cause Papers

[2]The cause papers for the applications in question are as follows:

The Defendants’ application to disqualify CCLC

(a)Notice of Application dated 24.11.2023 (encl. 10);

(b)the Defendants’ Affidavit In Support (‘AIS’) affirmed by its Director, Ng Joo Mok on 7.12.2023 (encl. 12);

(c)the Plaintiffs’ Affidavit In Reply (‘AIR’) affirmed by Ng Annie on 21.12.2023 (encl. 14); and

(d)the Defendants’ AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 4.1.2024 (encl. 16).

The Plaintiff’s application for the determination of a question of law

(a)Notice of Application dated 29.5.2024 (encl. 35);

(b)the Plaintiffs’ AIS affirmed by Ng Annie on 5.6.2024 (encl. 36);

(c)the Defendants’ AIR affirmed by its Director, Ng Joo Mok on 20.6.2024 (encl. 41);

(d)the Defendants’ Notice of Intention to Use Affidavit in encls. 12, 16 and 37 dated 20.6.2024 (encl. 42); and

(e)the Plaintiffs’ AIR affirmed by the same deponent on 2.7.2024 (encl. 43);

(f)the Defendant’s AIR No. 2 affirmed by the same deponent on 16.7.2024 (encl. 50);

(g)the Plaintiff’s AIR No. 2 affirmed by the same deponent on 2.8.2024 (encl. 58);

(h)the Defendant’s AIR No. 3 affirmed by the same deponent on 22.8.2024 (encl. 61); and

(i)the Plaintiff’s AIR No. 3 affirmed by the same deponent on 5.9.2024 (encl. 64).

Background Facts

[3]The salient facts as gleaned from the SoC are as follows.

[4]The Plaintiffs, Ng Sean and the 2nd Defendant (‘D2’) are the lawful daughters and son of the late Ng Swee Long (‘Deceased’) who died intestate on 22.3.1969.

[5]Letters of Administration for the Estate of the Deceased (‘Estate’) was taken out by his two wives, the late Eng Yee Keng and the late Koh Ai Choo (‘Original Administratix’). However, they passed away without completing the administration of the Estate and upon their death, D2 and one Ng Joo Hwang were appointed as joint administrators de bonis non of the Estate (‘Joint Administrators’).

[6]The sole asset of the Deceased is all that piece of land held under E.M.R 4235 Lot 928 Mukim Petaling, Daerah Kuala Lumpur and Wilayah Persekutuan (‘Land’).

[7]By an Agreement dated 21.6.1974 and a Supplementary Agreement dated 1.11.1978 entered into between Kong Lee Development Sdn Berhad (now known as Golden City Properties Sdn Berhad; ‘Developer’) and the Original Administratrix, and a further agreement vide a letter dated 17.6.1986 from Messrs. PG Lim & Co. to Messrs. ST Lee & Partners (these three agreements shall hereinafter collectively be referred to as the ‘JV Agreement’), the Developer agreed to, among others, construct residential houses and deliver vacant possession of six units of residential houses to the Estate upon the terms and conditions as contained in the JV Agreement.

[8]Without consent of the Original Administratrix, the Developer proceeded to subdivide the Land into 21 separate individual lots with 21 individual titles (‘21 Titles’) without complying with the terms of the JV Agreement and transferred 15 individual titles to the Developer’s name (‘15 Titles’) without giving any valuable consideration to the Estate.

[9]The Joint Administrators then filed an action against the Developer for the recovery of the 21 Individual Titles vide Kuala Lumpur High Court Civil Suit No