Klangcapital Development Sdn Bhd 1. ) Chew Beng Hean [Sebagai Pelaksanaan Harta Pusaka Ang Pee (No. K/p: 430209-10-5250) Simati] 2. ) Chew Yee Seng 3. ) Tee Kiat Seong @ Ke Siong 4. ) Tioe Ching Kun 5. ) Yap Lian Ann 6. ) Yap Lian Tiong 7.

Klangcapital Development Sdn Bhd 1. ) Chew Beng Hean [Sebagai Pelaksanaan Harta Pusaka Ang Pee (No. K/p: 430209-10-5250) Simati] 2. ) Chew Yee Seng 3. ) Tee Kiat Seong @ Ke Siong 4. ) Tioe Ching Kun 5. ) Yap Lian Ann 6. ) Yap Lian Tiong 7.

Applying the de minimis rule the encroachment (641.5 sq.ft, 0.07% of the Land) was trivial and did not amount to occupation by squatters/occupants/licensees/tenants; plaintiff knew of the encroachment and by its conduct waived rights and is estopped from claiming non-delivery; therefore vendors delivered vacant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-341-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Klangcapital Development Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant: Chew Beng Hean (as executor of the estate of Ang Pee); 2nd Defendant: Chew Yee Seng; 3rd Defendant: Tee Kiat Seong @ Ke Siong; 4th Defendant: Tioe Ching Kun; 5th Defendant: Adrian Yap Huan Hwang (as executor of the estate of Yap Lian Ann); 6th Defendant: Yap Lian Tiong; 7th Defendant: Chew Choon Kiat (as trustee); 8th Defendant: Chew Yee Seng (as trustee); 9th Defendant: Messrs. JY Huang & Associates (sued as a firm); 1st Third Party: Xun Hong Hardware Sdn Bhd; 2nd Third Party: Mortrade Sdn Bhd; 3rd Third Party: Pesuruhjaya Tanah Persekutuan; 4th Third Party: Flexidynamic Engineering Sdn Bhd; 5th Third Party: Heveaplast (M) Sdn Bhd; 6th Third Party: Aero Metal Fabricant Sdn Bhd; 7th Third Party: Longjoy Weaving Fabricated Sdn Bhd; 4th Party: Kiara Susila Sdn Bhd; 4th Party (in Related Action): WWRC Malaysia Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-341-08/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Writ Action for Breach of Contract and Stakeholder Duty (sale of Land) / Grounds of Judgment (final Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Vacant Possession, Encroachment, Stakeholder Duty, Breach of Contract, De Minimis Rule, Unjust Enrichment (absence of Basis), Waiver and Estoppel, Costs
Contract Law Property Law Equity and Unjust Enrichment Civil Procedure Land Law Vacant Possession Encroachment Stakeholder Duty +5 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Klangcapital Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Chew Beng Hean (as executor of the estate of Ang Pee)

1st Defendant

Chew Yee Seng

2nd Defendant

Tee Kiat Seong @ Ke Siong

3rd Defendant

Tioe Ching Kun

4th Defendant

Adrian Yap Huan Hwang (as executor of the estate of Yap Lian Ann)

5th Defendant

Yap Lian Tiong

6th Defendant

Chew Choon Kiat (as trustee)

7th Defendant

Chew Yee Seng (as trustee)

8th Defendant

Messrs. JY Huang & Associates (sued as a firm)

9th Defendant

Xun Hong Hardware Sdn Bhd

1st Third Party

Mortrade Sdn Bhd

2nd Third Party

Pesuruhjaya Tanah Persekutuan

3rd Third Party

Flexidynamic Engineering Sdn Bhd

4th Third Party

Heveaplast (M) Sdn Bhd

5th Third Party

Aero Metal Fabricant Sdn Bhd

6th Third Party

Longjoy Weaving Fabricated Sdn Bhd

7th Third Party

Kiara Susila Sdn Bhd

4th Party

WWRC Malaysia Sdn Bhd

4th Party (in Related Action)

Procedural Posture

Writ Action for Breach of Contract and Stakeholder Duty (sale of Land) / Grounds of Judgment (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether D1 to D8 failed to deliver vacant possession of the Land as stipulated in the SPA on or before 23.02.2018
  2. 2 If yes, whether D1 to D8 breached the SPA and liable for late delivery charges at RM2,209.50 per day
  3. 3 Whether D9 breached stakeholder duty by releasing balance purchase price before vacant possession delivered

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the de minimis rule the encroachment (641.5 sq.ft, 0.07% of the Land) was trivial and did not amount to occupation by squatters/occupants/licensees/tenants; plaintiff knew of the encroachment and by its conduct waived rights and is estopped from claiming non-delivery; therefore vendors delivered vacant possession within clause 10 and plaintiff's claims (including against stakeholder) fail.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed with costs
  • Costs of RM30,000.00 to be paid by the plaintiff to D1 to D8, subject to allocatur fee