SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PROPNEX REALTY SDN BHD

SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD PROPNEX REALTY SDN BHD

The Court held that rule 92(1) of the VAEA Rules 1986 did not bar formation of an estate agency contract; on the facts Propnex's conduct, written fee communications and facilitation of introductions and site visits established an estate agency contract and that Propnex was the effective cause of the sale; accordingly the High Court's quantum meruit order was set aside and SME Bank was ordered to pay the contractual fee of RM819,000.

Citation
W-04(NCvC)(W)-362-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/respondent: Propnex Realty Sdn Bhd; Appellant/respondent: Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
19 August 2025
Case Number
W-04(NCvC)(W)-362-09/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 25 August 2025)
Outcome
Allow Propnex appeal (Appeal 355); dismiss SME Bank appeal (Appeal 362); set aside High Court quantum meruit order and award contractual estate agency fee to Propnex.
Legal Topics
Estate Agency Contract, Quantum Meruit, Statutory Compliance (vaea Rules 1986), Appellate Review (plainly Wrong), Remedies (interest and Costs)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Agency Law Property Law Administrative Law Estate Agency Contract Quantum Meruit Statutory Compliance (vaea Rules 1986) Appellate Review (plainly Wrong) +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Propnex Realty Sdn Bhd

Appellant/respondent

Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad

Appellant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment (grounds of Judgment Dated 25 August 2025)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a contract for an estate agency between Propnex and SME Bank in respect of the sale of the Property
  2. 2 Whether Propnex was the effective cause of sale of the Property to Dynacare

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that rule 92(1) of the VAEA Rules 1986 did not bar formation of an estate agency contract; on the facts Propnex's conduct, written fee communications and facilitation of introductions and site visits established an estate agency contract and that Propnex was the effective cause of the sale; accordingly the High Court's quantum meruit order was set aside and SME Bank was ordered to pay the contractual fee of RM819,000.

Court Disposition

Allow Propnex appeal (Appeal 355); dismiss SME Bank appeal (Appeal 362); set aside High Court quantum meruit order and award contractual estate agency fee to Propnex.

Orders

  • SME Bank to pay Propnex an estate agency fee of RM819000.00 (3% of RM27300000.00)
  • Claim for 6% SST of RM49140.00 dismissed