ja-22ncvc-141-10-2024 — MOK CHIA WU v 1. ) CHUA CHEE WEAE 2. ) CHUA CHEE LIANG

Catchwords

Guaman sivil – Permohonan membatalkan tindakan – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(a) Kaedah-Kaedah Mahkamah 2012 – Limb teras – Tindakan tidak menzahirkan kausa tindakan munasabah – Ujian “plain and obvious” dan “plainly and obviously unsustainable” – Bandar Builder Sdn Bhd & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd [1993] 3 MLJ 36 – Prinsip landmark strike out – Andaian fakta plaintif diambil benar tetapi gagal dari segi undang-undang – Perbicaraan tidak boleh digunakan untuk mencipta hak undang-undang yang tidak wujud – Elakan perbicaraan sia-sia Kontrak – Privity of contract – Option to Purchase (OTP) hanya ditandatangani oleh Defendan Pertama – Defendan Kedua bukan pihak penandatangan – Tiada kontrak yang mengikat Defendan Kedua – Pelaksanaan khusus – Ketidakbolehan memaksa pemilik bersama (co-owner) memindahkan bahagian tak terbahagi tanpa asas kontrak Agensi – Actual authority dan apparent authority – Keperluan representasi oleh prinsipal – Dakwaan persetujuan lisan dan mandat – Kegagalan memlead fakta material – Hubungan kekeluargaan dan pemilikan bersama tidak mewujudkan agensi – Inferens dan andaian tidak mencukupi Prosedur sivil – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(2) KKM 2012 – Larangan penerimaan keterangan bagi permohonan di bawah limb (a) – Afidavit orang tengah/broker – Kedudukan kebolehterimaan – Walaupun diambil “at its highest”, tidak mengatasi kecacatan undang-undang asas – “Triable issues” yang bersifat periferi dan tidak menentukan Penyalahgunaan proses – Aturan 18 Kaedah 19(1)(b) dan (d) – Limb sokongan – Percubaan mengekalkan tindakan terhadap pihak tanpa asas kontraktual – Overreaching terhadap pemilik bersama – Aturan 92 Kaedah 4 KKM 2012 – Bidang kuasa sedia ada Mahkamah Keputusan – Permohonan Defendan Kedua dibenarkan – Writ dan Pernyataan Tuntutan dibatalkan setakat terhadap Defendan Kedua sahaja – Tindakan terhadap Defendan Pertama diteruskan – Kos RM3,000.00 kepada Defendan Kedua.

Practice Areas

Guaman sivil Kontrak Agensi Prosedur sivil Penyalahgunaan proses Keputusan

Judges (1)

Manira binti Mohd Nor Delivered

Counsel (5)

G.K Sritharan Firm RK Menon Firm G.K. Sritharan Counsel Plaintiff Ishwinder Counsel Defendant RK Menon Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Chua Chee Liang Defendant Chua Chee Weae Defendant Mok Chia Wu Plaintiff

Summary

Mok Chia Wu sued two co-owners of a property to enforce an Option to Purchase signed only by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant applied to strike out the action, arguing no privity of contract existed. The court struck out the claim against the 2nd defendant, finding that the OTP was signed only by the 1st defendant, no agency relationship was established, and requiring a non-contracting co-owner to transfer his undivided share was plainly unsustainable.

What was the outcome of MOK CHIA WU v 1. ) CHUA CHEE WEAE 2. ) CHUA CHEE LIANG?

<p>Mok Chia Wu sued two co-owners of a property to enforce an Option to Purchase signed only by the 1st defendant. The 2nd defendant applied to strike...

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)

Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (9)

MY (8)

[1968] 1 MLJ 170 [1993] 3 MLJ 36 [1996] 1 MLJ 233 [2009] 2 MLJ 102 [2017] MLJU 1765 [2020] MLJU 761 [2023] 3 CLJ 485 [2023] 3 MLJ 393

IN (1)

AIR 1969 SC 193