LEE BEE KIOW LEE BEE HONG

LEE BEE KIOW LEE BEE HONG

The court held that (1) a co-proprietor in occupation is not liable for retrospective rent absent ouster or agreement and the Appellant's rent claim was dismissed; (2) for a prospective sale the Partial Redemption Sum, proven Renovation Costs, Necessary Sale and Purchase Expenses, and assessment/quit rents (excluding utilities) must be borne equally and deducted from sale proceeds before equal division; and (3) the Respondent bears the burden of proving the Renovation Costs; the High Court order was varied accordingly.

Citation
B-02(NCvC)(A)-1832-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Lee Bee Kiow; Respondent: Lee Bee Hong
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
23 October 2025
Case Number
B-02(NCvC)(A)-1832-10/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; High Court order varied to clarify apportionment and proof requirements; Appellant's claim for retrospective rent dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Co Ownership, Partition, Order for Sale, Apportionment of Expenses, Renovation Costs, Estoppel, Accounting, Proof of Expenditure
Source Language
Malay/English
Land Law Equity Civil Procedure Co Ownership Partition Order for Sale Apportionment of Expenses Renovation Costs +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 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lee Bee Kiow

Appellant

Lee Bee Hong

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a co-proprietor in occupation must pay rent to the non-occupying co-proprietor absent ouster or agreement
  2. 2 How to treat and apportion a partial loan redemption and renovation costs on a prospective sale between co-proprietors
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has proved the claimed renovation costs and therefore is entitled to deduction from sale proceeds

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that (1) a co-proprietor in occupation is not liable for retrospective rent absent ouster or agreement and the Appellant's rent claim was dismissed; (2) for a prospective sale the Partial Redemption Sum, proven Renovation Costs, Necessary Sale and Purchase Expenses, and assessment/quit rents (excluding utilities) must be borne equally and deducted from sale proceeds before equal division; and (3) the Respondent bears the burden of proving the Renovation Costs; the High Court order was varied accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; High Court order varied to clarify apportionment and proof requirements; Appellant's claim for retrospective rent dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Appellant is permitted to sell the House by private treaty to break the deadlock
  • The following items, subject to proof, shall be borne equally by the Appellant and the Respondent: (i) the Partial Redemption Sum; (ii) the Renovation Costs (if proved); (iii) Necessary Sale and Purchase Expenses (assessment, quit rent, stamp duty, real estate agent's commission, legal fees and other mandatory sale...