L

Lim Kok Tong

Person 1 case

Lim Kok Tong appeared as a party in the following Malaysia court case:

wa-22ncvc-734-12-2022
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...
MYHC 5 February 2026

See the full case for complete details including judgment text, legal issues, and counsel involved.

About Lim Kok Tong

Lim Kok Tong appears as a party in 1 judgment in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2026 to February 2026. Lim Kok Tong appeared as plaintiff in 1 case. Cases span the High Court (1).

How many court cases involve Lim Kok Tong?

Lim Kok Tong appears in 1 published judgment from February 2026 to February 2026. Most commonly as plaintiff (1 cases).

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. 1 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 1 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. 1 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. 1 53 Accordingly, the Plaintiffs’ claims are dismissed in their entirety. 1 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. 1 55 The Plaintiffs therefore are ordered to pay to the Defendant the total sum of RM320,000.00 as costs, subject to allocator. 1

Plaintiff (1)

wa-22ncvc-734-12-2022 MYHC
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...
5 February 2026