TEOH KOK SENG 1. ) HEESLAND SDN BHD 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

TEOH KOK SENG 1. ) HEESLAND SDN BHD 2. ) TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

On the balance of probabilities the Court of Appeal found the delays were caused by the developer and its solicitors (agents of the developer), the tribunal's award blaming the appellant was irrational and procedurally flawed, the learned High Court judge improperly relied on 'without prejudice' settlement materials, and the LPI claim was premature; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal award and High Court decision and held the appellant not liable for the LPI.

Citation
P-01(A)-44-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Teoh Kok Seng; First Respondent: Heesland Sdn Bhd; Second Respondent: Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 November 2022
Case Number
P-01(A)-44-01/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against High Court Dismissal of Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and Tribunal award set aside.
Legal Topics
Late Payment Interest, Judicial Review, Irrationality, Illegality, Procedural Impropriety, Without Prejudice, Agency/representative Capacity, Premature Demand/notice
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Administrative Law Civil Procedure Agency Law Equity Late Payment Interest Judicial Review Irrationality +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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teoh Kok Seng

Appellant

Heesland Sdn Bhd

First Respondent

Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against High Court Dismissal of Judicial Review / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether purchaser is liable for Late Payment Interest where delay in lender disbursement was caused by developer or developer's solicitors
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's award blaming the appellant was irrational or illegal
  3. 3 Whether 'without prejudice' settlement communications could be relied upon by the judge/tribunal

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the Court of Appeal found the delays were caused by the developer and its solicitors (agents of the developer), the tribunal's award blaming the appellant was irrational and procedurally flawed, the learned High Court judge improperly relied on 'without prejudice' settlement materials, and the LPI claim was premature; accordingly the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the tribunal award and High Court decision and held the appellant not liable for the LPI.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and Tribunal award set aside.

Orders

  • Appellant's Judicial Review allowed and Tribunal Award in Claim No. TTPRZU/B/0030/19 dated 28.6.2019 set aside
  • Appellant not liable to pay Late Payment Interest claimed by First Respondent