KHAIRUL EFFENDI BIN HAMZAH v LIM BOON YAN

ca-12bncvc-3-03-2025 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 5 October 2025 • CA-12BNCvC-3-03/2025

Catchwords

In brief, the Defendants are advocates and solicitors. The Plaintiff was a client of the Defendants. The Plaintiff engaged the Defendants’ firm to prepare a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Accordingly, the last day for settlement was 4 months from the date of the SPA. When nothing was received after 6 months, the Plaintiff’s wife lodged a police report. The Defendants demanded an apology and for Plaintiff to retract the police report and that the balance purchase price (“BPP”) would only be released upon such conditions were fulfilled. The Plaintiff through his solicitor, demanded the release of the BPP. As the demand went unanswered, the Plaintiff filed a claim in court. The Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the delay was caused by the Plaintiff’s own conduct which had tarnished their reputation. The learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and allowed some of the Defendants’ counterclaim. It was held that the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge allowing the Defendants’ counterclaim is set aside and the decision of the Sessions Court in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim is affirmed. The learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim which were undisputed but had yet to be released. However, despite no evidence produced, the Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge. Evidences before this court shows that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their counterclaim. Hence, the decision to set aside the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Practice Areas

In brief, the Defendants are advocates and solicitors. The Plaintiff was a client of the Defendants. The Plaintiff engaged the Defendants’ firm to prepare a Sale and Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Accordingly, the last day for settlement was 4 months from the date of the SPA. When nothing was received after 6 months, the Plaintiff’s wife lodged a police report. The Defendants demanded an apology and for Plaintiff to retract the police report and that the balance purchase price (“BPP”) would only be released upon such conditions were fulfilled. The Plaintiff through his solicitor, demanded the release of the BPP. As the demand went unanswered, the Plaintiff filed a claim in court. The Defendants filed a counterclaim alleging that the delay was caused by the Plaintiff’s own conduct which had tarnished their reputation. The learned Sessions Court Judge allowed the Plaintiff’s claim and allowed some of the Defendants’ counterclaim. It was held that the decision of the learned Sessions Court Judge allowing the Defendants’ counterclaim is set aside and the decision of the Sessions Court in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim is affirmed. The learned Sessions Court Judge was correct in allowing the Plaintiff’s claim which were undisputed but had yet to be released. However, despite no evidence produced, the Defendant’s counterclaim was allowed by the Sessions Court Judge. Evidences before this court shows that the Defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof necessary to establish their counterclaim. Hence, the decision to set aside the Defendant’s counterclaim.

Judges (1)

Samry bin Masri Delivered

Parties (2)

Khairul Effendi bin Hamzah Appellant Lim Boon Yan Respondent

Case Significance

KHAIRUL EFFENDI BIN HAMZAH v LIM BOON YAN is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated October 5, 2025 (citation: ca-12bncvc-3-03-2025). The case was decided by Samry bin Masri.

What was the outcome of KHAIRUL EFFENDI BIN HAMZAH v LIM BOON YAN?

KHAIRUL EFFENDI BIN HAMZAH v LIM BOON YAN is a High Court decision dated October 5, 2025. The case was heard by Samry bin Masri. See the full judgment for details.