1. ) PUNG IT TEONG 2. ) TAN YEE TING CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

1. ) PUNG IT TEONG 2. ) TAN YEE TING CAPITAL CITY PROPERTY SDN. BHD.

The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the Sessions Court was plainly wrong: rescission relief could not be granted without joinder of the Bank and Achwell given the assignment and title implications; the misrepresentation pleadings lacked required particularity and failed on the evidential elements (many alleged statements were future promises or were not addressed to Plaintiffs); the action was time‑barred under the Limitation Act; and Plaintiffs' conduct amounted to affirmation/afterthought. These constitute sufficient legal and factual bases to affirm the lower court's decision.

Citation
JA-12BNCvC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Pung It Teong; Appellant/plaintiff: Tan Yee Ting; Respondent/defendant: Capital City Property Sdn. Bhd.
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
10 April 2026
Case Number
JA-12BNCvC-14-06/2025 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (grounds of Decision)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 29 May 2025 affirmed
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Non Joinder, Locus Standi, Entire Agreement Clause, Limitation, Estoppel, Pleading Requirements, Appeal Standard of Review
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Tort (misrepresentation) Equity Misrepresentation Rescission Non Joinder Locus Standi +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 8 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pung It Teong

Appellant/plaintiff

Tan Yee Ting

Appellant/plaintiff

Capital City Property Sdn. Bhd.

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Judgment on Appeal (grounds of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Plaintiffs proved actionable misrepresentation by the Defendant
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiffs had locus standi given deed of assignment to the Bank
  3. 3 Whether non-joinder of Achwell (landowner) and the Bank was fatal to relief of rescission

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate the Sessions Court was plainly wrong: rescission relief could not be granted without joinder of the Bank and Achwell given the assignment and title implications; the misrepresentation pleadings lacked required particularity and failed on the evidential elements (many alleged statements were future promises or were not addressed to Plaintiffs); the action was time‑barred under the Limitation Act; and Plaintiffs' conduct amounted to affirmation/afterthought. These constitute sufficient legal and factual bases to affirm the lower court's decision.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Sessions Court dated 29 May 2025 affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs of RM10,000.00 subject to allocator
  • Decision of the Sessions Court dated 29 May 2025 affirmed