Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Memorandum of transfer

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2025

1. ) TOH CHIUN ER 2. ) CHENG WEE SIANG 3. ) AU YEONG KOON YEE 4. ) LAI HO YEE 5. ) LOW SAI MON 6. ) LEE YUEN KEI 7. ) LOH TOO CHIN 8. ) EE HOCK CHOUNG 9. ) EE CHERN YANG 10. ) PHUAH SIEW CHENG 11. ) LIM TECK LEONG 12. ) YONG CHENG YEE 13. )

Citation

WA-22NCvC-281-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-281-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found as a matter of law that the Defendant had the statutory and contractual obligations under s.8 Strata Titles Act 1985 and SPA Clauses 11(1)-(2) but that the Defendant fulfilled those obligations by applying and pursuing the subdivision and strata title process, keeping purchasers informed and demonstrating bona fide efforts; accordingly Plaintiffs' claims for the reliefs and for general damages were dismissed as academic or unfounded.
26 Sept 2025

1. ) TOH CHIUN ER 2. ) CHENG WEE SIANG 3. ) AU YEONG KOON YEE 4. ) LAI HO YEE 5. ) LOW SAI MON 6. ) LEE YUEN KEI 7. ) LOH TOO CHIN 8. ) EE HOCK CHOUNG 9. ) EE CHERN YANG 10. ) PHUAH SIEW CHENG 11. ) LIM TECK LEONG 12. ) YONG CHENG YEE 13. )

Citation

WA-22NCvC-281-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-281-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found on the facts that defendant had complied with its statutory and contractual obligations as expeditiously as possible, evidenced by applications (SIFUS/CPSP), engagement with authorities, and regular updates to purchasers; delays were attributable to statutory processing and circumstances beyond defendant's control, therefore no breach and plaintiffs not entitled to general damages; application and specified claims dismissed with costs.
24 Jul 2022

NG JIN SONG TAY AN NA

Citation

JA-22NCvC-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-22NCvC-33-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant did not comply with the express preconditions in the LOU (no evidence of an attempt to sell on the open market and no proof of payment of RM400,000); consequently the PA could not be validly invoked to effect the SPA and MOT in favour of the defendant; the MOT was therefore void and the transfer dated 7.1.2021 is set aside under National Land Code s.340(2); plaintiff remains the registered owner.
5 Jan 2022

1. ) HO AH NGIAU @ HO PHOY WENG 2. ) TAN KEE YONG 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 2. ) UDI PROPERTY SDN BHD 3. ) TETUAN SHAIK AZRIN & CO 4. ) DESMOND CHIAM ZUN YONG

Citation

PA-24NCvC-982-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

PA-24NCvC-982-12/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Clause 11 of the SPA (equivalent to Schedule G clause 12) is clear and binding on the registered proprietor; the proprietor cannot evade the statutory obligation to execute the Memorandum of Transfer by relying on a PA/PPA especially where the PA is revocable and the developer has been wound up; therefore the application against the 1st Defendant is allowed and the proprietor must comply with the SPA obligations.
8 Sept 2021

PIONEER HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 452393-U) NO. 513, TAMAN TUN SAMBANTHAN 31100 SUNGAI SIPUT (U), PERAK 1. ) KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BHD (NO. KOPERASI : 19) NO. 12, TINGKAT 7 WISMA TAN SRI MANICKAVASAGAM NO. 1, JALAN RAHMAT OFF JALA

Citation

AA-22NCvC-110-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AA-22NCvC-110-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The Court struck out the Plaintiff's claim because, taken at its highest, the claim was unsustainable: there was no title or effective contractual transfer in favour of the Plaintiff at the material date (land belonged to the State in 1999), no evidential foundation for the alleged RM1.5m debt, the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act and defeated by laches, and proceeding would be an abuse of process; in such plain and obvious circumstances summary dismissal was appropriate.
17 Aug 2020

LAI SIEW YOONG PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM

Citation

BA-24NCVC-1815-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCVC-1815-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The beneficiaries’ affidavit consenting to transfer constituted a release/renunciation amounting to a voluntary conveyance (gift) of their 3/4 entitlements; under the Stamp Act (Items 66, 32(h), 46 and s16(1)) such a voluntary conveyance is chargeable with ad valorem stamp duty calculated as if the transfer were on sale, therefore the Defendant’s ad valorem assessments are correct and are affirmed.

Malaysia Case Law

1. ) TOH CHIUN ER 2. ) CHENG WEE SIANG 3. ) AU YEONG KOON YEE 4. ) LAI HO YEE 5. ) LOW SAI MON 6. ) LEE YUEN KEI 7. ) LOH TOO CHIN 8. ) EE HOCK CHOUNG 9. ) EE CHERN YANG 10. ) PHUAH SIEW CHENG 11. ) LIM TECK LEONG 12. ) YONG CHENG YEE 13. )

1. ) TOH CHIUN ER 2. ) CHENG WEE SIANG 3. ) AU YEONG KOON YEE 4. ) LAI HO YEE 5. ) LOW SAI MON 6. ) LEE YUEN KEI 7. ) LOH TOO CHIN 8. ) EE HOCK CHOUNG 9. ) EE CHERN YANG 10. ) PHUAH SIEW CHENG 11. ) LIM TECK LEONG 12. ) YONG CHENG YEE 13. )

NG JIN SONG TAY AN NA

1. ) HO AH NGIAU @ HO PHOY WENG 2. ) TAN KEE YONG 1. ) SYARIKAT PERUMAHAN NEGARA BERHAD 2. ) UDI PROPERTY SDN BHD 3. ) TETUAN SHAIK AZRIN & CO 4. ) DESMOND CHIAM ZUN YONG

PIONEER HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. PENDAFTARAN : 452393-U) NO. 513, TAMAN TUN SAMBANTHAN 31100 SUNGAI SIPUT (U), PERAK 1. ) KOPERASI PEKERJA JAYA BHD (NO. KOPERASI : 19) NO. 12, TINGKAT 7 WISMA TAN SRI MANICKAVASAGAM NO. 1, JALAN RAHMAT OFF JALA

LAI SIEW YOONG PEMUNGUT DUTI SETEM