OU SIW LING 1. ) ELANGOVAN A/L GOVINDASAMY 2. ) MALARVIHLI A/P ELANGOVAN

OU SIW LING 1. ) ELANGOVAN A/L GOVINDASAMY 2. ) MALARVIHLI A/P ELANGOVAN

Although the lease was only signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant First (no privity by signature), the court found on the balance of probabilities that Defendant Second issued the 03.03.2020 letter and by her conduct and acceptance of benefit from the tenancy agreed to assume Defendant First's liabilities; documentary evidence (police reports and contemporaneous records) corroborated Plaintiff's account. Therefore Defendant Second was liable under principles of unjust enrichment and for the claimed remedies.

Citation
JA-A72NCvC-421-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Parties
Plaintiff: Ou Siw Ling; Defendant 1: Elangovan a/l Govindasamy; Defendant 2 (appellant): Malarvihli a/p Elangovan
Court
Magistrates' Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 August 2022
Case Number
JA-A72NCvC-421-06/2020 (Mahkamah Majistret)
Procedural Posture
Civil (magistrate Court) / Appeal Against Magistrate Court Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Appeal by Defendant Second dismissed; Magistrate Court judgment in favour of Plaintiff affirmed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Lease Agreement, Breach of Lease, Unjust Enrichment, Mesne Profits, Vacant Possession, Evidence Balance of Probabilities
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Equity Civil Procedure Restitution (unjust Enrichment) Privity of Contract Lease Agreement Breach of Lease +4 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ou Siw Ling

Plaintiff

Elangovan a/l Govindasamy

Defendant 1

Malarvihli a/p Elangovan

Defendant 2 (appellant)

Procedural Posture

Civil (magistrate Court) / Appeal Against Magistrate Court Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was privity of contract between Defendant Second and Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether Defendant Second issued the letter dated 03.03.2020 promising to settle the arrears on behalf of Defendant First
  3. 3 Whether the principle of unjust enrichment applies to Defendant Second and she is liable for Plaintiff's claims

Ratio Decidendi

Although the lease was only signed by the Plaintiff and Defendant First (no privity by signature), the court found on the balance of probabilities that Defendant Second issued the 03.03.2020 letter and by her conduct and acceptance of benefit from the tenancy agreed to assume Defendant First's liabilities; documentary evidence (police reports and contemporaneous records) corroborated Plaintiff's account. Therefore Defendant Second was liable under principles of unjust enrichment and for the claimed remedies.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Defendant Second dismissed; Magistrate Court judgment in favour of Plaintiff affirmed

Orders

  • Damages awarded to Plaintiff in the sum of RM22,730.29
  • Vacant possession of the premises to be delivered to Plaintiff