1. ) Marcus Lee Wyy Keat 2. ) WONG KHANG SHYAN 3. ) CHUA YAY LIM 4. ) HANG SIEW LI 5. ) TAN WEI CIAN 6. ) OOI BEE HONG 7. ) SITI ZILBIA BINTI ABDUL RAHIM 8. ) NG WEN DEE 9. ) ANSARUL IQMAL BIN ROSLAN 10. ) RATHIKA A/P PRAMMY SAMY @ PALANISAMY 11. ) AHMAD ZAMRI BIN YAAKOB 12. ) CHENG SHEK SIONG 13. ) TOK SOK KHING 14. ) CHONG KAH YEE 15. ) LIM EE ZINN 16. ) LEE SI CHING 17. ) QUAH AI TING 18. ) RAMESH VARAN A/L JAYAPRATHAPAN 19. ) YIM SEE YEE 20. ) LAU KAH WAI 21. ) RAHKEE CHEAH A/P S THINAKAR...
wa-22ncvc-734-12-2022 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 5 February 2026 • WA-22NCvC-734-12/2022 • 2 min read
Catchwords
Conclusion [49] Having evaluated the evidence in its entirety, including the testimony of all witnesses, this Court observes that the Plaintiffs’ motivation to acquire units adjoining, or in close proximity to, a shopping complex and hotel appears to have informed their subjective expectations that the purchase of units in Eclipse Residence would confer an immediate or automatic entitlement to such amenities. However, on an objective assessment of the evidence, those amenities formed part of the broader conceptual plans for the Pan’gaea Development. Such plans, without more, constitute statements of future intention rather than binding promises or representations of present fact. It has been established that an expression of future expression cannot amount to a representation of fact. See IJM Construction Sdn Bhd v. Lingakaran Luar Butterworth (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Anor (Court of Appeal) [2024] 4 MLJ 340 and Chia Tien Foh & Ors v. Lo Man Heng & Others (Court of Appeal) [2015] 1 LNS 1219. [50] This Court accordingly finds that there was no representation amounting to a promise that the hotel, shopping complex, or central park would be in existence at the time the Plaintiffs purchased their respective units, or that such amenities would be delivered contemporaneously with the construction of Eclipse Residence. As confirmed by DW1 and DW2, Eclipse Residence constituted one phase within the larger Pan’gaea Development, envisaged to be integrated with other phases over time. The evidence further establishes that, as matters presently stand, Eclipse Residence is situated adjacent to The Paragon and Solstice. See Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v. Teh Kim Dar @ Tee Kim (“Sim Thong Realty”) [2003] 3 MLJ 460 [51] The contractual relationship between the parties was governed by the respective Sale and Purchase Agreements, which confined the Defendant’s obligations to the units as advertised and represented. There was no complaint as to the layout or construction of the units themselves, and the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims relating to alleged defects in Suit No. 734. The Plaintiffs’ case, therefore, rests solely on alleged misrepresentations extraneous to the contractual bargain. [52] In the circumstances, this Court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of any false or actionable representation capable of founding inducement. In the absence of proof of misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs’ claims for general damages premised on the alleged loss of promised amenities, as well as their claims for aggravated damages arising from the Defendant’s conduct, necessarily fail. See Shen & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Jutawarna Development Sdn Bhd & Ors [2016] 7 MLJ 183. [53] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety. [54] Costs awarded to the Defendant reflect the protracted trial (11 days of trial and 64 witnesses), resources utilized including judicial time as the Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to re-evaluate their case and position. The learned counsel or the Defendant prayed for RM5,000.00 per purchase of the unit of Eclipse Residence. This Court finds the said amount reasonable. [55] The Plaintiffs therefore are ordered to pay to the Defendant the total sum of RM320,000.00 as costs, subject to allocator.
Practice Areas
Conclusion 49 Having evaluated the evidence in its entirety, including the testimony of all witnesses, this Court observes that the Plaintiffs’ motivation to acquire units adjoining, or in close proximity to, a shopping complex and hotel appears to have informed their subjective expectations that the purchase of units in Eclipse Residence would confer an immediate or automatic entitlement to such amenities. However, on an objective assessment of the evidence, those amenities formed part of the broader conceptual plans for the Pan’gaea Development. Such plans, without more, constitute statements of future intention rather than binding promises or representations of present fact. It has been established that an expression of future expression cannot amount to a representation of fact. See IJM Construction Sdn Bhd v. Lingakaran Luar Butterworth (Penang) Sdn Bhd & Anor (Court of Appeal) 2024 4 MLJ 340 and Chia Tien Foh & Ors v. Lo Man Heng & Others (Court of Appeal) 2015 1 LNS 1219. 50 This Court accordingly finds that there was no representation amounting to a promise that the hotel, shopping complex, or central park would be in existence at the time the Plaintiffs purchased their respective units, or that such amenities would be delivered contemporaneously with the construction of Eclipse Residence. As confirmed by DW1 and DW2, Eclipse Residence constituted one phase within the larger Pan’gaea Development, envisaged to be integrated with other phases over time. The evidence further establishes that, as matters presently stand, Eclipse Residence is situated adjacent to The Paragon and Solstice. See Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v. Teh Kim Dar @ Tee Kim (“Sim Thong Realty”) 2003 3 MLJ 460 51 The contractual relationship between the parties was governed by the respective Sale and Purchase Agreements, which confined the Defendant’s obligations to the units as advertised and represented. There was no complaint as to the layout or construction of the units themselves, and the Plaintiffs have abandoned their claims relating to alleged defects in Suit No. 734. The Plaintiffs’ case, therefore, rests solely on alleged misrepresentations extraneous to the contractual bargain. 52 In the circumstances, this Court finds, on a balance of probabilities, that the Plaintiffs have failed to establish the existence of any false or actionable representation capable of founding inducement. In the absence of proof of misrepresentation, the Plaintiffs’ claims for general damages premised on the alleged loss of promised amenities, as well as their claims for aggravated damages arising from the Defendant’s conduct, necessarily fail. See Shen & Sons Sdn Bhd v. Jutawarna Development Sdn Bhd & Ors 2016 7 MLJ 183. 53 Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety. 54 Costs awarded to the Defendant reflect the protracted trial (11 days of trial and 64 witnesses), resources utilized including judicial time as the Plaintiffs were given the opportunity to re-evaluate their case and position. The learned counsel or the Defendant prayed for RM5,000.00 per purchase of the unit of Eclipse Residence. This Court finds the said amount reasonable. 55 The Plaintiffs therefore are ordered to pay to the Defendant the total sum of RM320,000.00 as costs, subject to allocator.
Judges (1)
Parties (82)
OSK PROPERTY HOLDINGS BERHAD Defendant WAWASAN RAJAWALI Sdn Bhd Defendant Ahmad Zamri bin Yaakob Plaintiff Ang Chong Cheng Plaintiff Ang Jin Leong Plaintiff Ang Lay Ching Plaintiff Ansarul Iqmal bin Roslan Plaintiff Benedict Lau Ching Yu Plaintiff Che Sarimah binti Sudin Plaintiff Cheng Shek Siong Plaintiff Cheryl Ong May Phing Plaintiff Chiang Phooi Har Plaintiff Chien Yik Ching Plaintiff Chin Mee San Plaintiff Chin Wei Leong Plaintiff Chiu Siow Choeng Plaintiff Chong Kah Yee Plaintiff Choong Chin Mian Plaintiff Chua Yay Lim Plaintiff Hang Siew Li Plaintiff Joanne Chin Pei Ling Plaintiff Kam Ee Yin Plaintiff Kee Geet Siee Plaintiff Khoo Kian Hoong Plaintiff Khoo Mei Ting Plaintiff Koh Yen Yee Plaintiff Krishanthi a/p P Poonendarajah Plaintiff Lau Kah Wai Plaintiff Lau Sher Lin Plaintiff Lee Phang Nin Plaintiff Lee Si Ching Plaintiff Liew Siew Wen Plaintiff Lim Ai Ney Plaintiff Lim Ee Zinn Plaintiff Lim Keat Heong Plaintiff Lim Kok Tong Plaintiff Loh Wui Keat Plaintiff Low Siew Feng Plaintiff Luah Kim Hoon Plaintiff Marcus Lee Wyy Keat Plaintiff Mhd Dzuha bin Ibrahim Plaintiff Mohd Aizat bin Ali Akbar Plaintiff Ng Wen Dee Plaintiff Nor Kamalia binti Roslan Plaintiff Norlaila binti Mohd Nordin Plaintiff Ooi Bee Hong Plaintiff Ooi Kian Woei Plaintiff Ooi Kuan Chong Plaintiff Pang Hui Chiun Plaintiff Parameswaran a/l Kandasamy Plaintiff Pheng Theng Shin Plaintiff Phoon Der Long Plaintiff Quah Ai Ting Plaintiff Rahkee Cheah a/p S Thinakaran Plaintiff Ramesh Varan a/l Jayaprathapan Plaintiff Ramu a/l Suppramaniam Plaintiff Rathika a/p Prammy Samy @ Palanisamy Plaintiff Reuben Oh Cheang Long Plaintiff Sarah binti Zulkefli Plaintiff Sat Choy Kuen Plaintiff Siti Zilbia binti Abdul Rahim Plaintiff Soo Boon Ping Plaintiff Tan Kay Oon Plaintiff Tan Phay Sing Plaintiff Tan Shi Ling Plaintiff Tan Wei Cian Plaintiff Teh Yeong Jer Plaintiff Teo Wai Chin Plaintiff Teoh Wei Hwa Plaintiff Tok Sok Khing Plaintiff Tun Tee Huat Plaintiff Vanitha a/p Kandasamy Plaintiff Wong Khang Shyan Plaintiff Wong Poh Yee Plaintiff Wong Pooi Ling Plaintiff Wong Siew Ting Plaintiff Wong Yoke Ying Plaintiff Wu Lunan Plaintiff Yew Chi Keong Plaintiff Yim Choong Sang Plaintiff Yim See Yee Plaintiff Yu Cheng Lian Plaintiff
Case Significance
1. ) Marcus Lee Wyy Keat 2. ) WONG KHANG SHYAN 3. ) CHUA YAY LIM 4. ) HANG SI... is a High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) decision dated February 5, 2026 (citation: wa-22ncvc-734-12-2022). The case was decided by Roz Mawar binti Rozain.
Key issues: [53] Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety..
What was the outcome of 1. ) Marcus Lee Wyy Keat 2. ) WONG KHANG SHYAN 3. ) CHUA YAY LIM 4. ) HANG SI...?
1. ) Marcus Lee Wyy Keat 2. ) WONG KHANG SHYAN 3. ) CHUA YAY LIM 4. ) HANG SI... is a High Court decision dated February 5, 2026. The case was heard by Roz Mawar binti Rozain. See the full judgment for details.