1. ) QING YANYUN 2. ) ZENG SHUHUA 3. ) ZENG XIA 4. ) WANG YANG 5. ) LIU BEIBEI 6. ) WANG TAO v B&G TROPICAL SDN. BHD.
Catchwords
1. The Plaintiff in this case sought a Declaration from the Court to annul two agreements i.e. a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and a Deferred Payment Plan Agreement (DPP) entered with the Defendant a licensed Developer for the purchase of property developed by the Defendant. 2. The Defendant in turn counter claimed against the Plaintiffs for the breach of these two agreements. 3. The case went to a full trial wherein the Plaintiff and Defendant adduced oral, as well as documentary evidence contained in the Bundle of Documents filed in Court. The parties also filed agreed statement of facts and issues to be tried in order to define the precise dispute in this case. Conclusion 50. Based on the factors above the Court rules both the SPA and DPP are enforceable contracts, the terms of which have been breached by the Plaintiffs themselves. It is trite law that the Plaintiffs cannot come to Court with dirty hands, which they have in this case, to avoid paying the full purchase price of the properties they have bought and enjoyed the use of. 51. In the upshot the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant is dismissed whereas the Defendant’s counter claim for the payment of the balance purchase payment under the SPA is allowed. This balance purchase payment is to be paid within 6 months from the date of judgement failing which the ownership of the properties will revert to the Defendant. 52. The Plaintiff are also directed to pay the cost of proceeding in the sum of RM100,000 within 1 month from the date of judgement.
Practice Areas
1. The Plaintiff in this case sought a Declaration from the Court to annul two agreements i.e. a Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) and a Deferred Payment Plan Agreement (DPP) entered with the Defendant a licensed Developer for the purchase of property developed by the Defendant. 2. The Defendant in turn counter claimed against the Plaintiffs for the breach of these two agreements. 3. The case went to a full trial wherein the Plaintiff and Defendant adduced oral, as well as documentary evidence contained in the Bundle of Documents filed in Court. The parties also filed agreed statement of facts and issues to be tried in order to define the precise dispute in this case. Conclusion 50. Based on the factors above the Court rules both the SPA and DPP are enforceable contracts, the terms of which have been breached by the Plaintiffs themselves. It is trite law that the Plaintiffs cannot come to Court with dirty hands, which they have in this case, to avoid paying the full purchase price of the properties they have bought and enjoyed the use of. 51. In the upshot the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendant is dismissed whereas the Defendant’s counter claim for the payment of the balance purchase payment under the SPA is allowed. This balance purchase payment is to be paid within 6 months from the date of judgement failing which the ownership of the properties will revert to the Defendant. 52. The Plaintiff are also directed to pay the cost of proceeding in the sum of RM100,000 within 1 month from the date of judgement.
Judges (1)
Case Significance
1. ) QING YANYUN 2. ) ZENG SHUHUA 3. ) ZENG XIA 4. ) WANG YANG 5. ) LIU BEIBE... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated January 27, 2025 (citation: wa-22ncvc-720-11-2020). The case was decided by Akhtar bin Tahir.
Key issues: 2. The Defendant in turn counter claimed against the Plaintiffs for the breach of these two agreements..
What was the outcome of 1. ) QING YANYUN 2. ) ZENG SHUHUA 3. ) ZENG XIA 4. ) WANG YANG 5. ) LIU BEIBE...?
1. ) QING YANYUN 2. ) ZENG SHUHUA 3. ) ZENG XIA 4. ) WANG YANG 5. ) LIU BEIBE... is a High Court decision dated January 27, 2025. The case was heard by Akhtar bin Tahir. See the full judgment for details.