1. ) NG SOCK FOON 2. ) LIM KIM KEANG 3. ) YEN JEAN SIANG 4. ) LEE SUVEN 5. ) KONG LAI HOONG 6. ) LEE JIA MIN 7. ) ADINO GIAM LIP GHEE 8. ) PREM KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 9. ) PRAKASH KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 10. ) NAVANITHAN A/L RADZAKRISNAN 11. ) SUM

1. ) NG SOCK FOON 2. ) LIM KIM KEANG 3. ) YEN JEAN SIANG 4. ) LEE SUVEN 5. ) KONG LAI HOONG 6. ) LEE JIA MIN 7. ) ADINO GIAM LIP GHEE 8. ) PREM KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 9. ) PRAKASH KUMAR A/L MARIAPPAN 10. ) NAVANITHAN A/L RADZAKRISNAN 11. ) SUM

Plaintiffs failed to prove negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation with requisite particularity and evidence; the developer fulfilled the statutory infrastructure contribution and representations were limited to a proposal within the local authority's control; statutory schemes did not confer a private cause of action for the alleged regulatory breaches and no proven loss was shown beyond LAD; annexure formed part of the SPA; absent evidence of fraud or façade, the corporate veil was not to be lifted — therefore all claims dismissed and costs awarded to Defendants.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-299-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiffs: 120 Plaintiffs (named individually in judgment); First Defendant (developer): MARIMO LAND SDN BHD; Second Defendant (managing Director): TARO FUKAGAWA
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
13 February 2026
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-299-08/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Representative Civil Action (housing Development Dispute) / Judgment (trial Concluded)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in entirety
Legal Topics
Negligent Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreement, Breach of Statutory Duty (housing Development Regulations), Lifting the Corporate Veil, Developer Contributions and Infrastructure Obligations, Strata Title Issuance, Remedies and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Tort (misrepresentation) Company Law (lifting Corporate Veil) Property Law (strata and Developer Obligations) Statutory Interpretation and Regulatory Compliance Negligent Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreement +5 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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

120 Plaintiffs (named individually in judgment)

Plaintiffs

MARIMO LAND SDN BHD

First Defendant (developer)

TARO FUKAGAWA

Second Defendant (managing Director)

Procedural Posture

Representative Civil Action (housing Development Dispute) / Judgment (trial Concluded)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendants committed negligent and/or fraudulent misrepresentation
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants breached statutory duties (HDR 1989, UBBL 1984, SDBA 1974, SMA 2013)
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants breached the SPAs (including clauses re defects and annexures)

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove negligent or fraudulent misrepresentation with requisite particularity and evidence; the developer fulfilled the statutory infrastructure contribution and representations were limited to a proposal within the local authority's control; statutory schemes did not confer a private cause of action for the alleged regulatory breaches and no proven loss was shown beyond LAD; annexure formed part of the SPA; absent evidence of fraud or façade, the corporate veil was not to be lifted — therefore all claims dismissed and costs awarded to Defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in entirety

Orders

  • Claims dismissed
  • Costs awarded to Defendants: RM1,000.00 per Plaintiff (120 Plaintiffs) amounting to total RM120,000.00