1. CT BAKTI TIMUR CONSTRUCTION 2. SITI FATIMAH BINTI YUNUS TENGKU MOHAMMAD ARIF BIN RAJA HUSIN

1. CT BAKTI TIMUR CONSTRUCTION 2. SITI FATIMAH BINTI YUNUS TENGKU MOHAMMAD ARIF BIN RAJA HUSIN

The Court allowed the appeal because the PA dated 28/1/2008 remained valid and enforceable: there was no deed/notice of revocation filed under s5 Power of Attorney Act 1949, the second JV continued the same joint venture purposes and therefore did not nullify the PA, and contemporaneous conduct and correspondence...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
D-02(NCVC)(W)-1546-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant Defendant 1: CT Bakti Timur Construction; Appellant Defendant 2: Siti Fatimah binti Yunus; Respondent Plaintiff: Tengku Mohammad Arif bin Raja Husin; Respondent Defendant 3 (transferee): Nafisah binti Yunus
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 September 2019
Case Number
D-02(NCVC)(W)-1546-07/2018 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (land/contract Dispute) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court findings that PA and transfers were void reversed; counterclaims dismissed
Legal Topics
Power of Attorney Revocation and Deposit (pa 1949), Joint Venture Agreement Interpretation, Transfer of Land and Registration (national Land Code S340), Entitlement to Sale Proceeds and Rental Income, Equitable Doctrines (unclean Hands), Counterclaim for Damages (mental Distress/exemplary)
Land Law Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Property Law Power of Attorney Revocation and Deposit (pa 1949) Joint Venture Agreement Interpretation Transfer of Land and Registration (national Land Code S340) +3 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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CT Bakti Timur Construction

Appellant Defendant 1

Siti Fatimah binti Yunus

Appellant Defendant 2

Tengku Mohammad Arif bin Raja Husin

Respondent Plaintiff

Nafisah binti Yunus

Respondent Defendant 3 (transferee)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (land/contract Dispute) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Power of Attorney dated 28/01/2008 was valid and whether it was revoked by the cancellation of the first Joint Venture Agreement
  2. 2 Whether Section 5 of the Power of Attorney Act 1949 required a deed of revocation to render the Power of Attorney ineffective
  3. 3 Whether transactions and the sale of Lot PT244 to the third defendant were void or valid and whether sale proceeds and rental income belonged to the plaintiff or defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The Court allowed the appeal because the PA dated 28/1/2008 remained valid and enforceable: there was no deed/notice of revocation filed under s5 Power of Attorney Act 1949, the second JV continued the same joint venture purposes and therefore did not nullify the PA, and contemporaneous conduct and correspondence showed the plaintiff acknowledged the PA; consequently transfers executed under the PA and the appellants' entitlement to sale proceeds and rental income were valid while the defendants' counterclaim damages were not proved.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court findings that PA and transfers were void reversed; counterclaims dismissed

Orders

  • Power of Attorney dated 28/1/2008 declared valid and enforceable
  • All transactions executed by Defendant 2 under the Power of Attorney declared valid and effective