1. ) LIM SWEE CHOO 2. ) CHIAM ENG HUAT @ CHIAM ENG HONG v ONG KOH HOU @ WON KOK FONG

02f-22-07-2024w Federal Court (Mahkamah Persekutuan) 7 April 2025 • 02(f)-22-07/2024(W) • 136 min read

64 cases cited (2 SG, 62 foreign)

Catchwords

Academic Literature; Assignment; Breach; Conflation; Illegality; Judicial Development; Judicial Notice; Judicial Precedents; Judicial Reasoning; Legal Certainty; Partial Failure; Partial Performance; Prospective Overruling; Repudiation; Restitution; Retrospective; Rule of Law; Statutory Interpretation; Test; Total Failure of Consideration; Unconscionability.

Practice Areas

Contract Restitution

Judges (5)

Abdul Karim bin Abdul Jalil Coram Abdul Rahman bin Sebli Coram Ahmad Terrirudin bin Mohd Salleh Delivered Rhodzariah binti Bujang Coram Zabariah binti Mohd Yusof Coram

Counsel (11)

Adeline, Phoon & Co Firm Alfred Lai & Partners Firm Adeline Tan Shu Phing Counsel Appellant Alfred Lai Choong Wui Counsel Respondent Dato' Dr. Cyrus V. Das Counsel Appellant Ho Weng Sze Counsel Respondent Jaden Phoon Wai Ken Counsel Appellant Jonathan Gerard Counsel Respondent Low Weng Tchung Counsel Appellant Toh Mei Swan Counsel Respondent Yew Jing Yi Counsel Respondent

Parties (3)

Chiam Eng Huat @ Chiam Eng Hong Appellant Lim Swee Choo Appellant Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong Respondent

Summary

This appeal raised novel questions about the doctrine of total failure of consideration in Malaysian law, following the Federal Court's prior rulings in Berjaya Times Square and Damansara Realty. The five-member panel examined whether partial performance precludes a claim for total failure of consideration in the context of an assignment agreement. The Court allowed the appellants' appeal, holding that the Court of Appeal misdirected itself in ordering return of RM23 million and denying the remaining RM2.5 million claim.

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act

s 56(1)

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

s 40 s 66

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 103

Specific Relief Act 1950 (Cap 137)

Cases Cited (64)

SLR (2)

[2010] 2 SLR 677 [2018] 1 SLR 239

UK (26)

[1921] 2 AC 494 [1943] AC 32 [1949] 2 All ER 1107 [1950] 1 KB 671 [1952] AC 166 [1962] 2 QB 26 [1972] 3 All ER 158 [1975] AC 591 [1977] 1 All ER 518 [1978] 1 All ER 841 [1980] 1 All ER 556 [1980] AC 367 [1993] 3 All ER 481 [1994] 1 AC 85 [1994] AC 85 [1997] 2 WLR 684 [1998] 1 All ER 883 [1998] 1 WLR 574 [2002] 4 All ER 689 [2002] EWCA Civ 1407 [2003] 2 All ER 113 [2003] QB 679 [2005] UKHL 41 [2006] EWCA Civ 1079 [2012] EWCA Civ 61 [2015] AC 1

MY (36)

[1954] 1 MLJ 193 [1965] 2 MLJ 166 [1965] 2 MLJ 241 [1970] 1 MLJ 138 [1975] 2 MLJ 279 [1979] 2 MLJ 121 [1985] 2 MLJ 291 [1985] 2 MLJ 35 [1989] 1 MLJ 308 [1989] 2 CLJ 181 [1989] 2 CLJ 44 [1992] 1 MLJ 289 [1992] 2 MLJ 281 [1994] 3 MLJ 345 [1997] 3 MLJ 323 [2000] 4 MLJ 1 [2000] 4 MLJ 65 [2006] 4 MLJ 113 [2007] 4 MLJ 1 [2008] 1 CLJ 135 [2009] 3 MLJ 349 [2010] 1 MLJ 597 [2010] 6 CLJ 560 [2015] 2 MLJ 441 [2015] 5 MLJ 619 [2017] 5 MLJ 385 [2020] 1 MLJ 141 [2020] 2 MLJ 1 [2020] 4 MLJ 721 [2020] 5 MLJ 277 [2021] 6 MLJ 619 [2022] 2 MLJ 25 [2022] 3 MLJ 641 [2024] 5 MLJ 897 [2024] MLJU 2291 [2025] 2 MLJ 634

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (02f-22-07-2024w)