Kenny Sim Chun Wei v Kuan Chen-Fui

w-02ncvcw-103-01-2024 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 21 January 2026 • W-02(NCvC)(W)-103-01/2024 • 46 min read
20 cases cited (0 SG, 20 foreign)

Catchwords

This appeal concerned the enforceability of an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement arising from estate agency business. Although the High Court found that such an agreement existed, it held the arrangement to be illegal and unenforceable as it involved profit sharing by a non-registered person, contrary to r 91(1) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986, rendering the contract void under s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. Section 22C of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 was held inapplicable. The Court of Appeal found no basis for appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal.

Practice Areas

This appeal concerned the enforceability of an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement arising from estate agency business. Although the High Court found that such an agreement existed, it held the arrangement to be illegal and unenforceable as it involved profit sharing by a non-registered person, contrary to r 91(1) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986, rendering the contract void under s 24 of the Contracts Act 1950. Section 22C of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 was held inapplicable. The Court of Appeal found no basis for appellate intervention and dismissed the appeal.

Judges (3)

Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid Coram Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli Coram Lim Chong Fong Delivered

Counsel (6)

Cecil Abraham & Partners Firm Wong & Wong Firm Cecil Abraham & Partners Counsel Appellant Celeste Lu Counsel Respondent Wong Chong Wah Counsel Respondent Wong Chun-Keat Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Kenny Sim Chun Wei Appellant Kuan Chen-fui Respondent

Case Significance

Kenny Sim Chun Wei v Kuan Chen-Fui is a Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) decision dated January 21, 2026 (citation: w-02ncvcw-103-01-2024). <p>This appeal concerned an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement in an estate agency business. The High Court found such an agreement existed but held it illegal and unenforceable as it involved profit-sharing with a non-registered person contrary to rule 91(1) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the arrangement was void under section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.</p> The panel comprised Ahmad Kamal bin Md. Shahid, Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli and Lim Chong Fong, with Lim Chong Fong delivering the judgment. Counsel appearing: Cecil Abraham & Partners (counsel for appellant), Celeste Lu (counsel for respondent), Wong Chong Wah (counsel for respondent), Wong Chun-Keat (counsel for respondent).

Summary

This appeal concerned an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement in an estate agency business. The High Court found such an agreement existed but held it illegal and unenforceable as it involved profit-sharing with a non-registered person contrary to rule 91(1) of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming that the arrangement was void under section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.

What was the outcome of Kenny Sim Chun Wei v Kuan Chen-Fui?

<p>This appeal concerned an alleged oral revenue-sharing agreement in an estate agency business. The High Court found such an agreement existed but he...

Statutes Cited

Contracts Act 1950 (Cap 136)
Malayan Contracts Ordinance
s 66
Rules of Court 2012

Cases Cited (20)

UK (3)
[2014] 1 WLR 2600 [2016] UKSC 42 [2017] 1 All ER 191
MY (17)
[1964] MLJ 92 [1965] 2 MLJ 151 [1971] 1 MLJ 7 [1976] 1 MLJ 151 [1981] 1 MLJ 14 [1995] 3 MLJ 395 [1996] 4 CLJ 545 [1998] 1 AMR 909 [1998] 1 MLJ 393 [1998] 2 CLJ 75 [2003] 2 CLJ 19 [2004] 2 CLJ 265 [2004] 2 CLJ 99 [2015] 4 CLJ 1107 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2021] 2 CLJ 441 [2021] 6 MLJ 348