WONG MUN HOE v MAR SZE LING

wa-24ncvc-2468-07-2024 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 27 November 2025 • WA-24NCvC-2468-07/2024 • 2 min read

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Originating summons — Co-ownership of immovable property — Breakdown of relationship between co-owners — Power of court to order sale — Whether just and equitable to terminate co-ownership — Courts of Judicature Act 1964, s 25 and Sch, para 3 — Rules of Court 2012, O 31 r 1 Land Law — Joint ownership — Undivided half-shares — Properties acquired for partnership purposes — Dissolution of partnership — Death of co-owner — Estate represented by executrix — Impasse between co-owners — Whether sale should be ordered in lieu of partition Land Law — Sale of land — Court-ordered sale — Public auction — Competing private valuations — Absence of jointly appointed valuer — Market value best determined by open auction — Appointment of independent valuer to fix reserve price Equity — Co-ownership — Duties between co-owners — Unauthorised renovation works — Alteration of jointly owned property without consent — Breach of mutual trust — Whether reinstatement appropriate remedy Remedies — Reinstatement — Structural alterations — Practical difficulty of supervision — Whether damages or costs sufficient compensation — Court’s discretion Costs — Conduct of party — Unauthorised renovation — Whether conduct material to exercise of discretion — Costs awarded against plaintiff

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Land Law Equity & Trusts Remedies

Judges (1)

Moh Kok Wai Delivered

Parties (2)

Mar Sze Ling Respondent Wong Mun Hoe Applicant

Case Significance

A deadlocked co-ownership of partnership property terminated by a court-ordered sale in lieu of partition, with market value to be set by open public auction rather than competing private valuations.

This High Court decision concerns an originating summons over the co-ownership of immovable property, brought where the relationship between the co-owners had broken down. The properties were held in undivided half-shares and had been acquired for the purposes of a partnership between the co-owners. That partnership had since been dissolved, and one of the co-owners had died, so that the deceased's interest fell to be represented by the executrix of the estate. With the surviving co-owner and the estate unable to agree, the co-ownership had reached an impasse.

The central question was whether the Court should order a sale of the property in lieu of partition, and whether it was just and equitable to terminate the co-ownership in that way. The Court's jurisdiction to do so was founded on section 25 of, and paragraph 3 of the Schedule to, the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, read with Order 31 rule 1 of the Rules of Court 2012, which together empower the High Court to order the sale of property in a dispute between parties interested in it. Where co-owners are deadlocked and partition is impractical, a court-ordered sale allows each to realise the value of an undivided share that neither can otherwise deal with.

A subsidiary but practically important question was how the property should be valued and sold. The parties advanced competing private valuations, and no valuer had been jointly appointed. The Court took the view that in such circumstances the market value of the property is most reliably determined by an open public auction rather than by preferring one side's valuation, so that a court-ordered sale by public auction both breaks the impasse and secures a fair price. The judgment is a useful illustration of when a court will terminate a deadlocked co-ownership by ordering a sale and of why an open auction is favoured over competing private valuations.

Why did the co-owners come to court?

The co-owners held undivided half-shares in property acquired for a now-dissolved partnership; one co-owner had died and was represented by the estate's executrix, and with the parties deadlocked the surviving side sought a court order terminating the co-ownership by sale.

How did the Court approach the sale and valuation?

Relying on section 25 and paragraph 3 of the Schedule to the Courts of Judicature Act 1964 with Order 31 rule 1, the Court treated a court-ordered sale in lieu of partition as the just and equitable course, and held that, absent a jointly appointed valuer and faced with competing private valuations, market value is most reliably determined by an open public auction.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-24ncvc-2468-07-2024)