1. ) Xue Di 2. ) Xue Lianjia Hoong Ming Sie

1. ) Xue Di 2. ) Xue Lianjia Hoong Ming Sie

The High Court upheld the trial judge's liability findings as not plainly wrong, but reduced the damages to RM139,900 because under the SPA the Vendors are only liable to refund monies received under the Agreement; additional heads awarded by the trial judge were not recoverable because they were not monies received by the Vendors, were not pleaded or proved as unjust enrichment, and some claimed items (notably stamp duties) were unsupported or recoverable by statutory refund; ancillary restitutionary orders tied to refund of the 10% deposit were affirmed.

Citation
BA-12BNCvC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant Vendor: Xue Di; Appellant/defendant Vendor: Xue Lianjia; Respondent/plaintiff: Hoong Ming Sie
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Case Number
BA-12BNCvC-12-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed on quantum; appeal on liability dismissed; quantum reduced to RM139900; each party to bear own costs of appeal; ancillary orders made for restitution and administrative steps
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement Termination, Refund of Deposit, Measure and Quantum of Damages, Appellate Interference (plainly Wrong Test), Ancillary Orders (deed Cancellation, Caveat Removal), Solicitors' Fees and Stamp Duty
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Restitution and Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Costs Law Sale and Purchase Agreement Termination Refund of Deposit Measure and Quantum of Damages +3 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 6 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Xue Di

Appellant/defendant Vendor

Xue Lianjia

Appellant/defendant Vendor

Hoong Ming Sie

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Vendors breached the SPA by failing to pay the redemption shortfall
  2. 2 Whether the Purchaser was entitled to terminate the SPA
  3. 3 Whether the phrase 'monies received by the Vendor under this Agreement' includes the stated deposit components and renovation payments

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court upheld the trial judge's liability findings as not plainly wrong, but reduced the damages to RM139,900 because under the SPA the Vendors are only liable to refund monies received under the Agreement; additional heads awarded by the trial judge were not recoverable because they were not monies received by the Vendors, were not pleaded or proved as unjust enrichment, and some claimed items (notably stamp duties) were unsupported or recoverable by statutory refund; ancillary restitutionary orders tied to refund of the 10% deposit were affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed on quantum; appeal on liability dismissed; quantum reduced to RM139900; each party to bear own costs of appeal; ancillary orders made for restitution and administrative steps

Orders

  • Defendants/Vendors to refund the 10% Deposit amounting to RM139900 to the Plaintiff/Purchaser
  • Deed of Assignment to be deemed cancelled and returned together with quit rent and assessment receipts and vendors' documents intact (subject to submission to Stamp Office for stamp duty refund within three months if required)