Kenny Sim Chun Wei Kuan Chen-Fui

Kenny Sim Chun Wei Kuan Chen-Fui

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the oral revenue-sharing arrangement, as pleaded and evidenced, constituted profit-sharing (not mere commission) falling within Rule 91(1) and thus contravened the professional rules; s.22C was inapplicable on the facts because the Appellant acted as an employee/negotiator for MIP rather than as an independent estate agent, but Rule 91 rendered the revenue-sharing agreement illegal and void; the High Court's factual findings were reasonably made and not plainly wrong; restitution/refund principles under s.66 may apply in appropriate circumstances but Appellant was not entitled to enforce the illegal revenue-sharing contract; appeal dismissed...

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff (high Court): Kenny Sim Chun Wei; Respondent / First Defendant (high Court): Kuan Chen-Fui; Second Respondent / Second Defendant (high Court): MIP Properties Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
22 January 2026
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (breach of Contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Judgment; Disposal by Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Revenue Sharing Agreement, Profit Sharing Vs Commission, Illegality of Contract for Contravention of Statutory Rules, Application of S22 C Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981, Rule 91 Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986, Section 66 and Section 24 Contracts Act Remedies, Appellate Review Standard (plainly Wrong)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Professional Regulation Property and Estate Agency Law Restitution/unjust Enrichment Revenue Sharing Agreement Profit Sharing Vs Commission Illegality of Contract for Contravention of Statutory Rules Application of S22 C Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenny Sim Chun Wei

Appellant / Plaintiff (high Court)

Kuan Chen-Fui

Respondent / First Defendant (high Court)

MIP Properties Sdn Bhd

Second Respondent / Second Defendant (high Court)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (breach of Contract) / Appeal to Court of Appeal From High Court Judgment; Disposal by Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral revenue-sharing agreement existed between the parties and its terms
  2. 2 Whether the revenue-sharing arrangement constituted unlawful profit-sharing prohibited by Rule 91(1) of the Rules and therefore rendered the contract illegal and void
  3. 3 Whether s.22C of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 barred the Appellant's claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court: the oral revenue-sharing arrangement, as pleaded and evidenced, constituted profit-sharing (not mere commission) falling within Rule 91(1) and thus contravened the professional rules; s.22C was inapplicable on the facts because the Appellant acted as an employee/negotiator for MIP rather than as an independent estate agent, but Rule 91 rendered the revenue-sharing agreement illegal and void; the High Court's factual findings were reasonably made and not plainly wrong; restitution/refund principles under s.66 may apply in appropriate circumstances but Appellant was not entitled to enforce the illegal revenue-sharing contract; appeal dismissed...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Decision of the High Court affirmed