TAN SOW MOOI 1. ) RAINBOW PARADISE BEACH RESORT HOTEL 2. ) CHAMPSURF SDN BHD

TAN SOW MOOI 1. ) RAINBOW PARADISE BEACH RESORT HOTEL 2. ) CHAMPSURF SDN BHD

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding the Sessions Court was plainly wrong for failing to evaluate evidence against the legal elements of trespass and nuisance, for misapplying judicial notice regarding service of the Notice, and for disregarding the legal effect of the appellant's long lease; accordingly the appellant was entitled to vacant possession, decontamination of the unit, refund of maintenance/service charges from July 2020, costs orders, and the quantum of damages was remitted to the Sessions Court for assessment.

Citation
PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Tan Sow Mooi; Respondent/defendant: Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort Berhad; Respondent/defendant: Champsurf Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 March 2025
Case Number
PA-12BNCvC-15-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (post Trial) / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision set aside in part and matter remitted to Sessions Court for assessment of damages
Legal Topics
Trespass to Land, Private Nuisance, Quiet Enjoyment, Appellate Review Standard ('plainly Wrong'), Damages, Unjust Enrichment
Source Language
Malay/English
Land/property Tort Strata/leasehold Law Evidence Trespass to Land Private Nuisance Quiet Enjoyment Appellate Review Standard ('plainly Wrong') +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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tan Sow Mooi

Appellant/plaintiff

Rainbow Paradise Beach Resort Berhad

Respondent/defendant

Champsurf Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (post Trial) / High Court Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants committed trespass by causing lessee to vacate unit
  2. 2 Whether defendants' conduct amounted to private nuisance interfering with quiet and comfortable enjoyment
  3. 3 Whether the Notice (D14) was served and its legal effect

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appellant's appeal, holding the Sessions Court was plainly wrong for failing to evaluate evidence against the legal elements of trespass and nuisance, for misapplying judicial notice regarding service of the Notice, and for disregarding the legal effect of the appellant's long lease; accordingly the appellant was entitled to vacant possession, decontamination of the unit, refund of maintenance/service charges from July 2020, costs orders, and the quantum of damages was remitted to the Sessions Court for assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Sessions Court decision set aside in part and matter remitted to Sessions Court for assessment of damages

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs of RM10,000 for this appeal to be paid by defendants to appellant by 21.4.2025; costs subject to allocatur; failure to pay by 21.4.2025 attracts interest at 5% per annum from 22.4.2025 until full payment
  • Costs of RM7,000 relating to Enclosure 11 (leave to file supplementary memorandum) to be paid by defendants to appellant by 21.4.2025; failure to pay attracts interest at 5% per annum from 22.4.2025 until full payment