ROSIDIN BIN MARJAN 1. ) NORAZILA BINTI MOKHTAR 2. ) TETUAN RAHA YASIN & CO

ROSIDIN BIN MARJAN 1. ) NORAZILA BINTI MOKHTAR 2. ) TETUAN RAHA YASIN & CO

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of a partnership and a 50:50 profit sharing in respect of the 39 transacted properties; there was no credible documentary or audited evidence to support the RM660,500 claim; the 2nd Respondent was not shown to be the Appellant's solicitor and the documents sought are privileged under s126 Evidence Act 1950; the non-availability of notes of evidence did not cause a mistrial and did not justify a retrial.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-9-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Rosidin bin Marjan; 1st Respondent/defendant: Norazila binti Mokhtar; 2nd Respondent/defendant: Tetuan Raha Yasin & Co
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 February 2022
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-9-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment (full Trial)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Existence of Partnership, Profit Sharing, Constructive Trustee Liability, Legal Professional Privilege (solicitor Client), Discovery, Appellate Standard of Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Partnership Law Trusts and Constructive Trust Evidence Law Civil Procedure Property/real Estate Transactions Existence of Partnership Profit Sharing Constructive Trustee Liability +3 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 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rosidin bin Marjan

Appellant/plaintiff

Norazila binti Mokhtar

1st Respondent/defendant

Tetuan Raha Yasin & Co

2nd Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment (full Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a partnership existed between the Appellant and 1st Respondent covering the 39 transacted properties
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was entitled to half the profits amounting to RM660,500
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Respondent was a constructive trustee of the sale proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Appellant failed to prove on a balance of probabilities the existence of a partnership and a 50:50 profit sharing in respect of the 39 transacted properties; there was no credible documentary or audited evidence to support the RM660,500 claim; the 2nd Respondent was not shown to be the Appellant's solicitor and the documents sought are privileged under s126 Evidence Act 1950; the non-availability of notes of evidence did not cause a mistrial and did not justify a retrial.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed.
  • Appellant to pay costs of RM3,000 to each Respondent.