22 Jan 2026
Kenny Sim Chun Wei Kuan Chen-Fui
- Citation
- W-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
- Court
- NCvC
- Case number
- W-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
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 b…
- Revenue sharing agreement
- Profit-sharing vs commission
- Illegality of contract for contravention of statutory rules
- Application of s22c 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