NG SOW LENG v Mooi Mun Yin [Bertindak Sebagai Pentadbir Yang Dilantik Melalui Surat Kuasa Mentadbir Bawah Saman Pemula No: Ba-31ncvc-671-04/2025 Bagi Harta Pusaka, Mooi Chee Meng (No. K/p: 750603-08-5481) Defendan Dalam Tindakan Asal] PIHAK TERKILAN Tetuan Yeong Khoo & Partners

Case Significance

Grants specific performance under section 11 of the Specific Relief Act 1950 where the vendor had signed all transfer documents and consent had been obtained, rejecting unpleaded defences of unlawful moneylending, duress and misrepresentation; the counterclaim, including against the solicitors' firm, was dismissed.

This High Court (Shah Alam) decision follows a full trial of a claim for specific performance concerning the sale of a house, together with a counterclaim. The public decision was delivered in open court on 23 April 2025. Before reading its decision the court recorded its condolences to the family and solicitors of the defendant, who had died on 23 January 2025, and it recorded its thanks to counsel and witnesses for their cooperation in the conduct of the full trial and the preparation of written submissions.

On the facts, the plaintiff had entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 14 March 2018 as buyer of a two-storey semi-detached house standing on land of about 276 square metres. The plaintiff's case was that the defendant had refused to complete the transfer of the property, and that the transaction had been obscured by an alleged unlawful moneylending arrangement. In the counterclaim it was alleged that there had been duress and misrepresentation by the second and third defendants. The court noted that all of the transfer documents had been signed by the defendant and that consent to the transfer had been obtained.

The court addressed the pleading rules, holding that a defence not pleaded could not be relied upon and that the burden of proof lay on the party asserting a fact, referring to Order 34 rule 2 of the Rules of Court 2012 and to the duty of care of a solicitor towards a client under the Legal Profession (Practice and Etiquette) Rules 1978. On the whole of the evidence and on a balance of the equities, the court found that the justice of the case demanded the grant of specific performance to compel the completion of the sale, and that it was fair and just to allow the relief of specific performance sought by the plaintiff under section 11 of the Specific Relief Act 1950. In the result the plaintiff's claim was allowed with costs of RM20,000, subject to allocatur, and the counterclaim against the plaintiff and the solicitors' firm was dismissed with costs.