TEOH WENG TONG TEOH WENG LAI

TEOH WENG TONG TEOH WENG LAI

Non est factum could not be considered because it was not pleaded; on the evidence the respondent failed to prove fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence and there was no basis to hold the memorandum void; therefore the memorandum is valid and enforceable and the respondent must pay RM400,000 with interest and costs.

Citation
PA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Teoh Weng Tong; Respondent/defendant: Teoh Weng Lai
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
25 March 2024
Case Number
PA-12BNCvC-1-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside to the extent of allowing claim and dismissing counterclaim
Legal Topics
Non Est Factum, Undue Influence, Misrepresentation, Enforceability of Family Memorandum, Interest, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Equity Property Civil Procedure Non Est Factum Undue Influence Misrepresentation Enforceability of Family Memorandum +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teoh Weng Tong

Appellant/plaintiff

Teoh Weng Lai

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court From Sessions Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defence of non est factum was available and applicable
  2. 2 Whether the memorandum was vitiated by undue influence, misrepresentation or fraud
  3. 3 Whether the defendant is bound by a signed document in a language he claims not to understand

Ratio Decidendi

Non est factum could not be considered because it was not pleaded; on the evidence the respondent failed to prove fraud, misrepresentation or undue influence and there was no basis to hold the memorandum void; therefore the memorandum is valid and enforceable and the respondent must pay RM400,000 with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment set aside to the extent of allowing claim and dismissing counterclaim

Orders

  • Respondent to pay RM400,000.00 to Appellant
  • Respondent's counterclaim dismissed