LISTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD CHE SOM BINTI SYED RASTAN

LISTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD CHE SOM BINTI SYED RASTAN

The SPA permitted forfeiture only of the Non-Refundable Sum; the Further Sum was refundable. The defendant retained the Further Sum without justification and was unjustly enriched. Estoppel and the defendant's prior conduct (attempt to return the Further Sum) precluded forfeiture; res judicata did not bar the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
PA-12A-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: LISTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD; Respondent / Defendant: CHE SOM BINTI SYED RASTAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2022
Case Number
PA-12A-29-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal (re Hearing) / Final Judgment on Appeal After Re Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed; decisions of Sessions Court set aside; Order 14A application allowed; defendant's striking out application dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture of Deposit, Return of Deposit, Estoppel, Approbate and Reprobate, Res Judicata, Summary Disposal Under Order 14 a, Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19, Appellate Review Standard
Contract Restitution/unjust Enrichment Equity Civil Procedure Property Forfeiture of Deposit Return of Deposit Estoppel +5 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LISTECH TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD

Appellant / Plaintiff

CHE SOM BINTI SYED RASTAN

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (re Hearing) / Final Judgment on Appeal After Re Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Further Sum of RM151,198.46 is forfeitable under the SPA
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has been unjustly enriched and must restitute the Further Sum
  3. 3 Whether estoppel/approbate and reprobate/acquiescence/election preclude the defendant from retaining the Further Sum

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA permitted forfeiture only of the Non-Refundable Sum; the Further Sum was refundable. The defendant retained the Further Sum without justification and was unjustly enriched. Estoppel and the defendant's prior conduct (attempt to return the Further Sum) precluded forfeiture; res judicata did not bar the distinct unjust enrichment claim. Accordingly the Order 14A summary determination in favour of the plaintiff was correct and the Sessions Court's dismissal and striking out were set aside; judgment for RM151,198.46 entered with interest.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; decisions of Sessions Court set aside; Order 14A application allowed; defendant's striking out application dismissed

Orders

  • Set aside the Sessions Court orders and allow both appeals
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff/appellant against the defendant in the sum of RM151,198.46