TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) GOH CHENG HUAT 2. ) GOH CHENG HUAY 3. ) GOH CHING CHAI 4. ) GOH CHING ENG 5. ) GOH CHING SEONG

TECT HUAT DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) GOH CHENG HUAT 2. ) GOH CHENG HUAY 3. ) GOH CHING CHAI 4. ) GOH CHING ENG 5. ) GOH CHING SEONG

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge that D4 lacked ostensible authority to bind the other co‑owners by his sole signature on the SA, therefore there was no valid extension of time and the JVA obligations remained unfulfilled; further the High Court erred in conducting an assessment and ordering payment for enhanced land value where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and no claim in quantum meruit or unjust enrichment was pleaded—consequently the High Court order awarding RM421,113.25 (with interest) was set aside and monies and titles ordered released to the defendants, with costs awarded.

Citation
B-02(NCvC)(W)-352-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Plaintiff; Appellant (appeal 352); Respondent (appeal 353): Tect Huat Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353): Goh Cheng Huat; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353): Goh Cheng Huay; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353): Goh Ching Chai; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353): Goh Ching Eng; Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353): Goh Ching Seong
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 May 2025
Case Number
B-02(NCvC)(W)-352-03/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Consolidated Appeals (appeals 352 and 353)
Outcome
Appeal 352 dismissed; Appeal 353 allowed in part.
Legal Topics
Joint Venture Agreement, Ostensible/actual Authority, Extension of Time, Assessment of Damages, Quantum Meruit, Unjust Enrichment, Costs, Stakeholder/release of Titles
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Equity and Restitution Joint Venture Agreement Ostensible/actual Authority Extension of Time Assessment of Damages +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tect Huat Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff; Appellant (appeal 352); Respondent (appeal 353)

Goh Cheng Huat

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353)

Goh Cheng Huay

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353)

Goh Ching Chai

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353)

Goh Ching Eng

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353)

Goh Ching Seong

Defendant; Respondent (appeal 352); Appellant (appeal 353)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (court of Appeal) / Hearing and Judgment on Consolidated Appeals (appeals 352 and 353)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether co-owner Goh Ching Eng (D4) had ostensible authority to bind all co-owners by signing the Supplementary Agreement (SA)
  2. 2 Whether the SA signed and sent via WhatsApp constituted a valid 30‑month extension of time
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred in ordering an assessment of damages for enhanced land value after dismissing the claimant's primary claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge that D4 lacked ostensible authority to bind the other co‑owners by his sole signature on the SA, therefore there was no valid extension of time and the JVA obligations remained unfulfilled; further the High Court erred in conducting an assessment and ordering payment for enhanced land value where the plaintiff's claim was dismissed and no claim in quantum meruit or unjust enrichment was pleaded—consequently the High Court order awarding RM421,113.25 (with interest) was set aside and monies and titles ordered released to the defendants, with costs awarded.

Court Disposition

Appeal 352 dismissed; Appeal 353 allowed in part.

Orders

  • Appeal B-02(NCvC)(W)-352-03/2024 (Appeal 352) dismissed with costs
  • Appeal B-02(NCvC)(W)-353-03/2024 (Appeal 353) allowed to the extent of setting aside the High Court order dated 29 January 2024 insofar as it ordered the Defendants to pay RM421,113.25 to the Plaintiff and to release titles upon such payment