Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

Summary and Facts
In Kunci Semangat Sdn Bhd v Thomas Varkki a/l MV Varkki & Anor [2022] 3 MLJ 857, the plaintiffs located a suitable property and negotiated a suitable price for the defendant. In return, the defendant promised to pay a finder’s fee. Due to the defendant’s failure to clear the balance sum, the plaintiff sued the defendant. The defendant counterclaimed that the plaintiffs had misrepresented the value and physical characteristics of the land. Moreover, the defendant, in post-trial written submissions, alleged that the plaintiffs’ claim was tainted with illegality. However, the issue of illegality was not pleaded in the defence. The High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ claim and dismissed the defendant’s counterclaim, which led to the present appeal.

Legal issues
i. Whether the estate agents’ claim was prohibited by provisions of the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981?
ii. Whether the estate agent’s claim was tainted with illegality?
iii. Whether the estate agents engaged in estate agency practice?

Court Findings

  • It was trite law that parties shall be bound by their pleadings. In this case, neither the elements of illegality nor the unlawfulness of the claim were pleaded by the defendant. The dismissal is more on technical ground.
  • Although illegality that was ex facie must be regarded by the court, it was for the defendant to plead the elements to maintain their defence.
  • To trigger the Act, the illegality has to be proven on the balance of probabilities i.e. the plaintiffs were engaged in an estate agency practice, relationship, or there was a system of estate agency.
  • The Court of Appeal (“COA”) emphasized the importance of proving the substantial elements of unlawful or illegal conduct. It would be unjust to allow an unpleaded issue of illegality to be considered. In fact, there was no evidence of estate agency practice found by the judicial commissioner and there was no objection from the defendant.

Practical Implications
The Kunci Semangat case highlighted Order 18 rule 8 of the Rules of Court when dealing with illegality. The facts giving rise to illegality must be pleaded. Considering the COA’s decision in Matad and The Eng Peng, the Act will not come into effect unless the facts are proven on the balance of probabilities. The party who asserts bears the burden of proof.

Reference Case

  • Kunci Semangat Sdn Bhd v Thomas Varkki a/l MV Varkki & Anor [2022] 3 MLJ 857
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us