PROPNEX REALTY SDN BHD v SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT BANK MALAYSIA BERHAD

w-04ncvcw-355-09-2023 Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) 18 August 2025 • W-04(NCvC)(W)-355-09/2023 • 24 min read
22 cases cited (0 SG, 22 foreign)

Outcome

W-04(NCVC)(W)-355-09/2023 W-04(NCVC)(W)-362-09/2023 23 Decision [59] Accordingly, we allow Propnex’s appeal in Appeal 355 and dismiss SME Bank’s appeal in Appeal 362. The order of the High Court that the payment of Propnex’s services is by way of quantum meruit is set-aside. [60] It is ordered that SME Bank pay Propnex an estate agency fee of RM819,000.00, which constitutes 3% of the Property's purchase price of RM27,300,000.00. Propnex’s claim for 6% SST on the estate agency fee, amounting to RM49,140.

Quoted verbatim from the judgment of Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan) (w-04ncvcw-355-09-2023). Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal for the complete decision.

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (6)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Confirms that a registered estate agent who is the effective cause of a sale is entitled to the fee prescribed by the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 and rule 92(1) of the Estate Agents Rules 1986, displacing a quantum meruit award, while unspecified tax cannot be added to the agreed fee.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns the entitlement of a registered estate agent to its estate agency fee, and forms the appeal brought by the estate agent in a pair of cross-appeals heard together. Propnex Realty Sdn Bhd, a registered estate agency, claimed RM868,140.00 from Small Medium Enterprise Development Bank Malaysia Berhad, comprising a professional fee of RM819,000.00 and 6% sales and service tax of RM49,140.00, for services said to have secured the sale of the bank's factory in Sitiawan, Perak for RM27,300,000.00. The Sessions Court dismissed the claim; the High Court partly allowed the agent's appeal, finding no express contract as to the fee but ordering payment on a quantum meruit basis. Both sides appealed. In the estate agent's appeal, the Court examined whether the agent had been the effective cause of the sale and whether it was entitled to the scale fee under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 and rule 92(1) of the Estate Agents Rules 1986, rather than to a discretionary quantum meruit sum. The Court held that the agent was the effective cause of the sale and was entitled to the prescribed estate agency fee, and it set aside the High Court's quantum meruit order. It allowed the estate agent's appeal and ordered the bank to pay an estate agency fee of RM819,000.00, being 3% of the purchase price, with interest at 5% from the date of judgment. The claim for 6% sales and service tax was refused because that sum had not been specified in the WhatsApp message of 4 January 2021 or in the letter of intent. The judgment is significant for confirming that a registered estate agent who is the effective cause of a sale is entitled to the scale fee prescribed under the Act and rules, not merely to a discretionary award.

Summary

Propnex Realty claimed RM819,000 in estate agency fees for facilitating the sale of SME Bank's factory property in Sitiawan, Perak to Dynacare (an associate of George Kent). The Court of Appeal allowed Propnex's appeal, finding that a valid estate agency contract existed and Propnex was the effective cause of the sale, awarding the full 3% agency fee of RM819,000 but disallowing the SST claim.

Was the estate agent entitled to the prescribed scale fee rather than a quantum meruit sum?

Yes. The Court of Appeal held that the estate agent was the effective cause of the sale and was entitled to the fee prescribed under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981 and rule 92(1) of the Estate Agents Rules 1986. It set aside the High Court's quantum meruit order and awarded a fee of RM819,000.00, being 3% of the purchase price.

Why was the claim for sales and service tax refused?

The Court refused the 6% sales and service tax of RM49,140.00 because that amount had not been specified in the WhatsApp message of 4 January 2021 or in the letter of intent by which the fee arrangement was communicated.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (22)

UK (1)
[2013] 1 WLR 2477
MY (20)
[1981] 1 MLJ 298 [1996] 1 AMR 839 [1996] 1 MLJ 233 [1996] 2 CLJ 611 [1999] 3 AMR 3345 [1999] 3 CLJ 738 [1999] 3 MLJ 577 [2004] 4 CLJ 309 [2004] 6 AMR 781 [2005] 2 MLJ 1 [2010] 9 CLJ 785 [2014] 7 MLJ 476 [2018] 1 AMR 517 [2018] 2 CLJ 641 [2018] 2 MLJ 177 [2020] 10 CLJ 1 [2020] 12 MLJ 67 [2020] 5 CLJ 27 [2020] 5 MLJ 630 [2020] 8 AMR 227
IN (1)
AIR 1969 SC 193

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (w-04ncvcw-355-09-2023)