YHL CONSULTING GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) LOW KIM LENG 2. ) PER GUAT HEONG

YHL CONSULTING GROUP SDN BHD 1. ) LOW KIM LENG 2. ) PER GUAT HEONG

Agreement 41 at RM1.3 million was a valid and enforceable contract because the First Defendant signed and accepted a cleared deposit, and the Second Defendant's conduct amounted to implied authority and representation that bound her; therefore the Defendants were estopped from denying the First Defendant's authority...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-103-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: YHL Consulting Group Sdn Bhd; First Defendant: Low Kim Leng; Second Defendant: Per Guat Heong
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 October 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-103-03/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Specific Performance and Related Reliefs Arising From a Sale and Purchase Transaction of Property / Trial Judgment (grounds of Judgment)
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; specific performance granted; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Agreement to Purchase, Co Proprietorship, Implied Authority, Estoppel, Deposit
Contract Law Property Law Agency Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Specific Performance Agreement to Purchase Co Proprietorship +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YHL Consulting Group Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Low Kim Leng

First Defendant

Per Guat Heong

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Specific Performance and Related Reliefs Arising From a Sale and Purchase Transaction of Property / Trial Judgment (grounds of Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Agreement to Purchase dated 11 September 2021 at RM1.3 million is a valid and enforceable contract binding on the parties
  2. 2 Whether the First Defendant had authority, actual or implied, to enter into the Agreement to Purchase on behalf of the Second Defendant
  3. 3 Whether the conduct of the Second Defendant constituted authorization or representation that the First Defendant could act on her behalf

Ratio Decidendi

Agreement 41 at RM1.3 million was a valid and enforceable contract because the First Defendant signed and accepted a cleared deposit, and the Second Defendant's conduct amounted to implied authority and representation that bound her; therefore the Defendants were estopped from denying the First Defendant's authority and specific performance was appropriate.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim allowed in part; specific performance granted; Defendants' counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Order for specific performance compelling the Defendants to complete the sale and purchase of the property in accordance with the Agreement to Purchase dated 11 September 2021 and to do all acts necessary to give effect to the transaction
  • If the Defendants fail/refuse/neglect to comply with the specific performance order within the stipulated time, the Deputy Registrar or Senior Assistant Registrar of the Court is authorised to sign, execute and complete all necessary documents and take all steps required to give effect to the order on behalf of the...