LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v 1. ) PANG CHEE HUN @ PHANG CHEE HUN 2. ) LIEW SHIN LIAN 3. ) CHAI NYUK JIN 4. ) MERCES BUILDERS (S) SDN. BHD. (IN LIQUIDATION) 5. ) BAYU SEMPURNA SDN. BHD.

q-01ncvcw-468-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 8 January 2026 • Q-01(NCvC)(W)-468-09/2023 • 21 min read

9 cases cited (0 SG, 9 foreign)

Catchwords

Whether the original purchasers (1st, 2nd, and 3rd Respondents) or the subsequent purchaser (Bayu Sempurna Sdn Bhd) of the subject properties has better title - developer/1st Defendant in liquidation - constructive trusts - whether purchase price must be paid in full - laches - limitation - cross-appeals.

Practice Areas

Land Law Equity & Trusts Limitation

Judges (3)

Azman bin Abdullah Coram Azmi bin Ariffin Coram Lim Hock Leng Delivered

Counsel (10)

Alvin Yong Advocates Firm Andy and Associates Firm Wung & Co., Kuching Firm Alvin Yong Sze Lung Counsel Respondent Anastasia Chin Mengxing Counsel Appellant Andy Tan Tung Sii Counsel Respondent James Lo Kuin Chuan Counsel Respondent Liew Sheau Kie Counsel Appellant Nicholas Wung Duk Ying Counsel Appellant Shirleen Ong Counsel Respondent

Parties (6)

BAYU SEMPURNA Sdn Bhd Respondent LAND CUSTODY AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Appellant MERCES BUILDERS Sdn Bhd. (IN LIQUIDATION) Respondent Chai Nyuk Jin Respondent Liew Shin Lian Respondent Pang Chee Hun @ Phang Chee Hun Respondent

Case Significance

Illustrates the resolution of competing claims to property between an original purchaser and a subsequent purchaser after the developer's liquidation, engaging constructive trust, laches and limitation, and the appellate court's reluctance to disturb a trial judge's findings absent plain error.

This Court of Appeal decision, in appeals from the High Court in Sabah and Sarawak at Kuching, concerns competing claims to title over subject properties following the developer's liquidation. The dispute was between the original purchasers — the first to third respondents, who had bought the properties from the developer — and a subsequent purchaser, Bayu Sempurna Sdn Bhd, which had later acquired the same properties. The developer, Merces Builders (S) Sdn Bhd, was in liquidation and represented through the Official Receiver. In this appeal the appellant was the Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA), a statutory body involved in the underlying land arrangements. The issues included whether the original purchasers or the subsequent purchaser had the better title, whether a constructive trust arose in favour of the original purchasers, whether the purchase price had to be paid in full, and the equitable and statutory defences of laches and limitation, together with cross-appeals.

The High Court had decided in favour of the original purchasers. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reviewed the findings and applied the settled standard that an appellate court will not interfere unless the trial judge was plainly wrong. It concluded that the High Court Judge had not been plainly wrong in the decision reached, so that appellate intervention was not warranted.

The Court of Appeal accordingly dismissed the appeals and the cross-appeals. On costs, it ordered that in this appeal the Land Custody and Development Authority pay total costs of RM50,000.00 to the first to third respondents, subject to the allocatur fee, and made no order as to costs against the Official Receiver, who had taken no part in the hearing. The judgment illustrates the priority between an original purchaser and a subsequent purchaser where the developer has gone into liquidation, and the appellate court's reluctance to disturb concurrent findings of fact.

Summary

The Land Custody and Development Authority (LCDA) and a subsequent purchaser (Bayu Sempurna) appealed against the High Court's finding that original purchasers had better title to properties sold by a developer now in liquidation, based on constructive trust principles. The Court of Appeal dismissed both cross-appeals with costs of RM50,000 each, finding the High Court was not plainly wrong in its determination that the original purchasers held beneficial interest through constructive trusts despite not having paid the full purchase price.

Whose title prevailed — the original purchasers or the subsequent purchaser?

The original purchasers (the first to third respondents) prevailed. The High Court had decided in their favour, and the Court of Appeal held that the trial judge had not been plainly wrong, dismissing the appeals and cross-appeals and declining to interfere with the finding on title.

What costs order was made in this appeal?

The Court of Appeal ordered the appellant, the Land Custody and Development Authority, to pay total costs of RM50,000.00 to the first to third respondents, subject to the allocatur fee. No order as to costs was made against the Official Receiver, who took no part in the hearing.