1. ) SUREENDHRAN SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) SARASWATHY A/P KRISNASAMAY 1. ) LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

1. ) SUREENDHRAN SUBRAMANIAM 2. ) SARASWATHY A/P KRISNASAMAY 1. ) LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD 2. ) ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a false misrepresentation induced them to enter the SPA (no cogent evidence of an impeded view and reliance contradicted by SPA exclusion clause and acknowledgement letters); innocent misrepresentation cannot rescind an executed conveyance absent fraud; Plaintiffs defaulted under the Deferred Payment Scheme and loan facilities, therefore 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaims succeed and bank is entitled to enforce its charge and pursue concurrent remedies.

Citation
WA-22NCvC-474-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: SUREENDHRAN SUBRAMANIAM; Plaintiff: SARASWATHY A/P KRISNASAMAY; 1st Defendant: LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2022
Case Number
WA-22NCvC-474-07/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (misrepresentation / Contract / Property / Banking) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaims allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Rescission, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Deed of Mutual Covenant, Deferred Payment Scheme, Mortgage/charge, Foreclosure, Concurrent Remedies, Burden of Proof
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Banking Law Equity Civil Procedure Misrepresentation Rescission Sale and Purchase Agreement +6 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SUREENDHRAN SUBRAMANIAM

Plaintiff

SARASWATHY A/P KRISNASAMAY

Plaintiff

LUSH DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD

1st Defendant

ALLIANCE BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (misrepresentation / Contract / Property / Banking) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the developer or its agent made a false misrepresentation inducing the Plaintiffs to enter the SPA and DMC regarding an unimpeded view and MRT Line 2
  2. 2 Whether a representation to the bank about payment of the differential sum amounted to misrepresentation to the Plaintiffs
  3. 3 Whether rescission of the executed SPA is available for innocent misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiffs failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that a false misrepresentation induced them to enter the SPA (no cogent evidence of an impeded view and reliance contradicted by SPA exclusion clause and acknowledgement letters); innocent misrepresentation cannot rescind an executed conveyance absent fraud; Plaintiffs defaulted under the Deferred Payment Scheme and loan facilities, therefore 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaims succeed and bank is entitled to enforce its charge and pursue concurrent remedies.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed; 1st and 2nd Defendants' counterclaims allowed with costs

Orders

  • The Plaintiffs' claim is dismissed
  • The counterclaim of the 1st Defendant is allowed