SINERJUTA SDN BHD 1. ) WYMAN KANG ENG KIA 2. ) THANARAJ LETCHUMANAN

SINERJUTA SDN BHD 1. ) WYMAN KANG ENG KIA 2. ) THANARAJ LETCHUMANAN

The appeal was allowed in part because a representative judgment for all 150 purchasers could not stand where only the 1st plaintiff gave evidence of being induced by the misrepresentation; however the Sessions Court’s factual finding that the developer made a fraudulent misrepresentation to the 1st plaintiff was upheld, so judgment is entered only for the 1st respondent for general damages to be assessed; each party to bear own costs.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-151-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant (developer): Sinerjuta Sdn Bhd; 1st Respondent / Plaintiff: Wyman Kang Eng Kian; 2nd Respondent / Plaintiff: Thanaraj A/L Letchumanan; Represented Purchasers in Class: Other 148 purchasers
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 September 2025
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-151-12/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (representative Action) / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part. Sessions Court judgment dated 5 December 2024 set aside insofar as it awarded relief to all 150 purchasers; judgment entered only in favour of the 1st respondent for general damages to be assessed; each party to bear own costs.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Representative Action / Class Action, Rescission, Damages, Specific Relief
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Tort Civil Procedure Property / Real Estate Equity Misrepresentation Representative Action / Class Action Rescission +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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sinerjuta Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Defendant (developer)

Wyman Kang Eng Kian

1st Respondent / Plaintiff

Thanaraj A/L Letchumanan

2nd Respondent / Plaintiff

Other 148 purchasers

Represented Purchasers in Class

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (representative Action) / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether two named plaintiffs could obtain judgment on behalf of 148 other purchasers for misrepresentation without individual evidence from those purchasers
  2. 2 Whether the Sessions Court’s finding of misrepresentation warranted judgment and relief and, if so, for which plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed in part because a representative judgment for all 150 purchasers could not stand where only the 1st plaintiff gave evidence of being induced by the misrepresentation; however the Sessions Court’s factual finding that the developer made a fraudulent misrepresentation to the 1st plaintiff was upheld, so judgment is entered only for the 1st respondent for general damages to be assessed; each party to bear own costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part. Sessions Court judgment dated 5 December 2024 set aside insofar as it awarded relief to all 150 purchasers; judgment entered only in favour of the 1st respondent for general damages to be assessed; each party to bear own costs.

Orders

  • Set aside the Sessions Court judgment dated 5 December 2024 insofar as it awarded relief to the Plaintiffs and 148 other persons
  • Enter judgment in favour of the 1st Respondent/Plaintiff against the Appellant/Defendant for General Damages to be assessed