1. BALBEER SINGH A/L KARAM SINGH (No. K/P: 560110-10-5037) 2. GEORGE LOIS A/L G. RATNAM SIVASAMBOO (No. K/P: 560305-10-5715) 3. RAMASAMY A/L VEERASAMY (No. K/P: 500704-10-5355) ( Kedua Dan Ketiga Adalah Pembeli Bersama Parcel No. A1D/23/2)

1. BALBEER SINGH A/L KARAM SINGH (No. K/P: 560110-10-5037) 2. GEORGE LOIS A/L G. RATNAM SIVASAMBOO (No. K/P: 560305-10-5715) 3. RAMASAMY A/L VEERASAMY (No. K/P: 500704-10-5355) ( Kedua Dan Ketiga Adalah Pembeli Bersama Parcel No. A1D/23/2)

The Court of Appeal held that the SAR and High Court erred in refusing to rely on the defendant's valuer; the defendant's valuation (RM450 p.s.f.; RM520,200 per unit) was admissible and functioned as an effective minimum market valuation because it was unrejected expert evidence and in substance an admission under the Evidence Act; judicial estoppel did not bar plaintiffs from relying on that valuation because plaintiffs did not prevail on their alternative valuation and the defendant's evidence remained before the court. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and damages were awarded by subtracting the SPA purchase prices from RM520,200 per unit with interest and costs.

Citation
W-03(IM)-7-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Balbeer Singh a/l Karam Singh; Appellant / Plaintiff: George Lois a/l G. Ratnam Sivasamboo; Appellant / Plaintiff: Ramasamy a/l Veerasamy; Appellant / Plaintiff: Sirchinder a/p Niranjan Singh; Appellant / Plaintiff: Harjeet Singh a/l Sardara Singh; Appellant / Plaintiff: Baldeep Singh a/l Gurdev Singh; Appellant / Plaintiff: Patwant Singh a/l Niranjan Singh; Respondent / Defendant: Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd
Court
IM
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 September 2021
Case Number
W-03(IM)-7-01/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Appeal From High Court Decision on SAR Assessment of Damages (court of Appeal Hearing)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court order dismissing plaintiffs' appeal against SAR set aside and substituted with judgment awarding damages based on defendant's valuer
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance, Assessment of Damages, Expert Evidence and Duties, Judicial Estoppel, Admissions Under Evidence Act, Interest and Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Civil Procedure Evidence Law Valuation Law Remedies Specific Performance Damages in Lieu of Specific Performance +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Balbeer Singh a/l Karam Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

George Lois a/l G. Ratnam Sivasamboo

Appellant / Plaintiff

Ramasamy a/l Veerasamy

Appellant / Plaintiff

Sirchinder a/p Niranjan Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

Harjeet Singh a/l Sardara Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

Baldeep Singh a/l Gurdev Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

Patwant Singh a/l Niranjan Singh

Appellant / Plaintiff

Sentul Raya Sdn Bhd

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Appeal From High Court Decision on SAR Assessment of Damages (court of Appeal Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs can recover substantial damages based on the defendant's valuer after plaintiffs' own valuer was rejected
  2. 2 Whether a party can rely on opponent's expert evidence when that party previously challenged it
  3. 3 Whether judicial estoppel precludes plaintiffs from relying on defendant's valuation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the SAR and High Court erred in refusing to rely on the defendant's valuer; the defendant's valuation (RM450 p.s.f.; RM520,200 per unit) was admissible and functioned as an effective minimum market valuation because it was unrejected expert evidence and in substance an admission under the Evidence Act; judicial estoppel did not bar plaintiffs from relying on that valuation because plaintiffs did not prevail on their alternative valuation and the defendant's evidence remained before the court. Accordingly the appeal was allowed and damages were awarded by subtracting the SPA purchase prices from RM520,200 per unit with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court order dismissing plaintiffs' appeal against SAR set aside and substituted with judgment awarding damages based on defendant's valuer

Orders

  • Damages awarded based on market value RM450 per sq.ft. (RM520,200 per unit) less each plaintiff's purchase price yielding specified sums per plaintiff as set out below
  • 1st Plaintiff awarded RM323,540.00