Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Malaysia Case Law

Valuation report

  • 2 Jul 2025

    LIM CHIEW MING LIM CHIN ENG

    Citation
    JA-24NCvC-1160-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    JA-24NCvC-1160-09/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Under section 145 National Land Code the Court lawfully exercised its discretion to terminate the co-proprietorship and ordered a buy-out mechanism: Respondent to purchase Applicant's 50% interest for RM700,000 within six months, with a fallback open-market sale at prevailing market value if the buy-out fails, because the Respondent agreed to buy, the Applicant provided no valuation evidence to justify insistence on immediate sale at RM1,400,000, and the staged buy-out protects both parties' interests.

  • 12 May 2021

    MALAYAN BANKING BERHAD (3813-K) ALDWYCH CAPITAL SDN BHD (NO. SYKT : 204344P)

    Citation
    WA-38-640-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-38-640-08/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The court held the Practice Direction's requirement for a fresh valuation applies in circumstances where a sale was not conducted or was withdrawn and two years have elapsed; it did not apply in this case where the property had been put to auction five times. Under section 259 the court has discretion to set a new reserve taking commercial reality into account. Applying that discretion the appeal was allowed and the reserve was set at a 10% reduction from the fifth auction reserve; the Deputy Registrar to fix the auction date and procedures.

  • 30 Apr 2021

    WA-38-293-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    Citation
    WA-38-293-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
    Court
    High Court
    Case number
    WA-38-293-03/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

    The Deputy Registrar’s order fixing the reserve price at RM700,000 was properly founded on a valuation using accepted comparison methodology; the defendants failed to rebut the valuation by producing their own competent valuation; the NOA to fix a new auction date was not time-barred and did not require leave under Order 46 because such applications enforce an order for sale under the NLC and are not actions within the Limitation Act; accordingly the appeal is dismissed with costs.