LING BOON HUAT DING TOH BIEW

LING BOON HUAT DING TOH BIEW

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred in implying a term into the consent orders because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the strict tests for implication (necessity/business efficacy or obviousness); implying the term would amount to a fundamental re‑writing of the consent orders which contained no express price‑adjustment mechanism; therefore the OS reliefs were wrongly granted and the High Court order was set aside.

Citation
A-02(NCvC)(A)-312-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (in High Court): Ling Boon Huat; Respondent / Plaintiff (in High Court): Ding Toh Biew
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 March 2024
Case Number
A-02(NCvC)(A)-312-03/2023 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal of Malaysia) / Judgment on Appeal Decision Dated 22 March 2024
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 24 February 2023 set aside
Legal Topics
Implied Terms, Consent Orders, Valuation, Specific Performance, Execution, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Civil Procedure Equity and Remedies Implied Terms Consent Orders Valuation Specific Performance +2 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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ling Boon Huat

Appellant / Defendant (in High Court)

Ding Toh Biew

Respondent / Plaintiff (in High Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal of Malaysia) / Judgment on Appeal Decision Dated 22 March 2024

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an implied term should be read into the 2015 and 2017 consent orders to permit contemporaneous re-valuation of the property and payment by the Defendant of any upward differential
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in implying such a term into a consent order
  3. 3 Whether a consent order is to be treated as a contract and the legal test for implying terms into it

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held the High Court erred in implying a term into the consent orders because the Plaintiff failed to satisfy the strict tests for implication (necessity/business efficacy or obviousness); implying the term would amount to a fundamental re‑writing of the consent orders which contained no express price‑adjustment mechanism; therefore the OS reliefs were wrongly granted and the High Court order was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order dated 24 February 2023 set aside

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • High Court order dated 24 February 2023 set aside