JUDGMENT

Noradura Hamzah JC:

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal by the Appellants ("the Plaintiffs") against the entire decision of the Sessions Court Judge of Johor Bahru ("the SCJ") dated 29 May 2025, which dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against the Respondent ("the Defendant") with costs of RM9,000.00.

[2] For ease of reference and consistency, the parties in this appeal shall be referred to as in the Sessions Court .

[3] Both parties have filed their respective written submissions and bundles of authorities and the following are the decision and grounds of this Court .

Background

[4] The Plaintiffs are individuals of Malaysian citizenship with an address in Singapore. On 12 May 2014, the Plaintiffs entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement ("the SPA") with the defendant (as developer) and Achwell Property Sdn Bhd ("Achwell") (as landowner) for the purchase of one (1) unit of Commercial Shop Lot Unit No. F3-058, Capital 21 @ Capital City ("the Property") at the price of RM405,756.00.

[5] On the same date, the Plaintiffs entered into a Tenancy Agreement ("the TA") with CCRM Management Sdn Bhd ("CCRM") as tenant. The Plaintiffs also entered into a Deed of Assignment dated 31 July 2015 with Affin Bank Berhad ("the Bank") for the purposes of a loan facility.

[6] The Plaintiffs allege that they were induced to enter into the SPA by five (5) representations made by the defendant through a marketing video ("P13") and during negotiations, namely

(a) a purchase and leaseback scheme with a guaranteed rental return of 7% (first year) and 8% (second year onwards);

(b) management by the Hatten Group;

(c) the construction of a Hatten Hotel and an International Hotel;

(d) different continental themes; and

(e) the construction of a First World Museum

(collectively, "the Representations").

[7] The Plaintiffs allege that the Representations constitute misrepresentations that induced them to enter into the SPA.

[8] Construction of the Property was completed and the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) was issued on 26 April 2018. The Plaintiffs took vacant possession on 2 July 2018.

[9] The Plaintiffs initially filed an action against the defendant on 11 November 2019 (Civil Suit No: JA-B52NCvC-154-11/2019) but that action was struck out with liberty to refile, consequent upon a judicial management order obtained by the defendant. The present action was filed on 28 September 2022.

Analysis Of The Court

[10] It is well-established law that an appellate Court will not disturb the decision of a trial Court unless that decision is shown to be plainly wrong. (See: Gan Yook Chin & Anor v. Lee Ing Chin & Ors; [2005] 2 MLJ 1; [2004] 4 CLJ 309; [2004] 6 AMR 781 and Dream Property Sdn Bhd v. Atlas Housing Sdn Bhd; [2015] 2 MLJ 441; [2015] 2 CLJ 453; [2015] 2 AMR 601). Appellate intervention is only warranted where there is no or insufficient judicial appreciation of the evidence, a material error of law, findings of fact that have no basis in the evidence, or a demonstrable misunderstanding of relevant evidence.

[11] The central issue in this appeal is whether the Plaintiffs have successfully demonstrated that the decision of the SCJ meets the aforesaid threshold. The Plaintiffs raised ten (10) grounds of appeal through the Memorandum of Appeal (encl 3) and the Supplementary Memorandum of Appeal (encl 8), collectively alleging that the SCJ erred in law and fact.

[12] Having carefully examined the entire appeal record, the submissions of both parties and the grounds of judgment of the SCJ, I find that the plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate any such error. My reasons are as follows.

A. Locus Standi

[13] The SCJ held that the plaintiffs did not have locus standi to commence this action against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiffs had assigned the entirety of their rights in the Property to the Bank by way of the Deed of Assignment.

[14] The Plaintiffs argue that cl 4.01 of the Deed of Assignment provides that the assignment was made "as securit