SAJAD HUSSAIN CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD

SAJAD HUSSAIN CREST WORLDWIDE RESOURCES SDN BHD

The court found that although an agreement existed and was performed (evidenced by procurement of buyers and payment), the appellant was not a registered estate agent as required by Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 s22C; therefore the object and consideration were unlawful under Contracts Act 1950 s24, the contract was void, and under s66 the appellant must restore the commission; summary judgment ordering repayment was therefore proper and the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
WA-12ANCVC-120-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Sajad Hussain; Respondent/defendant: Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 January 2021
Case Number
WA-12ANCVC-120-05/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Sessions Court (counterclaim for Return of Commission)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for respondent affirmed; appellant ordered to repay commission and to pay costs.
Legal Topics
Void Contract, Unlawful Consideration, Registration Requirement for Estate Agents, Summary Judgment, Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Regulatory Law (estate Agents) Civil Procedure Void Contract Unlawful Consideration Registration Requirement for Estate Agents Summary Judgment +1 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sajad Hussain

Appellant/plaintiff

Crest Worldwide Resources Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Sessions Court (counterclaim for Return of Commission)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was an agreement between the parties to pay commission for procuring buyers
  2. 2 Whether the agreement was valid in light of the requirement to be a registered estate agent under Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 s22C
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to retain commission or must restore it under Contracts Act 1950 s66

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although an agreement existed and was performed (evidenced by procurement of buyers and payment), the appellant was not a registered estate agent as required by Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 s22C; therefore the object and consideration were unlawful under Contracts Act 1950 s24, the contract was void, and under s66 the appellant must restore the commission; summary judgment ordering repayment was therefore proper and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for respondent affirmed; appellant ordered to repay commission and to pay costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Summary judgment affirmed: Plaintiff to repay commission of RM949,845 to Respondent