Case Summary: Yeo Ping Tieng & Ors v Elitprop Sdn Bhd
The parties involved
A) The plaintiffs (i.e. people who institute an action), namely:
- Yeo;
- Biaxis Sdn Bhd; and
- Public Bank Bhd.
B) The defendants (i.e. the people who are sued by the plaintiffs), namely:
- Janavista Sdn Bhd;
- Design Selection Sdn Bhd; and
- Elitprop Sdn Bhd.
The brief facts of the case
- Janavista hired Design Selection to build bungalows over a piece of land.
- Design Selection subcontracted the piling works to Biaxis.
- When the work was completed, Design Selection was not able to pay Biaxis for the work done.
- To resolve the matter, Janavista and Design Selection entered into a settlement agreement with Biaxis. In this regard, the land (together with the houses on the said land) will be sold to Biaxis or it’s nominee, Yeo, free from encumbrances.
The details of the settlement were as follows:
- An SPA was entered into between Janavista and Biaxis, in which Janavista will sell the land to Biaxis at the price of RM869,355.00.
- A house construction agreement (‘HCA’) was entered into between Design Selection and Biaxis whereby Design Selection will construct a bungalows on the piece of land for Biaxis for the price of RM1,008,565.
Once Biaxis paid all the monies to both Janavista and Design Selection for the abovementioned agreements:
- Janavista and Design selection wrote to Biaxis to confirm that the purchase price for the land and the bungalow had been paid in full; and
- Biaxis proceeded to obtain banking facilities (on behalf of Janavista) from Public Bank to redeem the land from Bumiputra Commerce Bank.
The shenanigans
While all the above was happening, Janavista sold and transferred the land to Elitprop for RM314,844. When Biaxis and Yeo found out, they (alongside Public Bank) sued Janavista, Design Selection and Elitprop.
**However, both Janavista and Design Selection was wound up prior to the commencement of the suit, leaving Eliteprop to defend the claim alone.
The plaintiff’s claim
The plaintiff claimed that Elitprop is not the rightful owner of the land (It should have been them instead) as Elitprop obtained the land by fraudulent means. To backup their claim, the put forth evidence to show that both Janavista and Elitprop were related companies. In this regard, they claimed that both Janavista and Elitprop were owned by the family members a family.
The decision of the court
The High Court sided with the plaintiffs.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals sided with the defendants.
On the final appeal, the Federal Court rejected the Court of Appeal’s decision and restore the decision meted out by the High Court.
Why?
The Federal Court noted that:
- Both Janavista and Design Selection had already acknowledged that Biaxis is the purchaser of the land. This was further confirmed by the fact that Biaxis had paid the money in full to them.
- The conduct of all the defendants clearly shows that all of the defendants, Elitprop included, knows exactly what transpired and yet still choose to turn a blind eye on their own conduct. In this regard, the court noted that they intentionally ganged up on the plaintiffs to get the name registered under the name of Elitprop, and acted in a manner that is deliberate and dishonest to deprive Baixis of its rights to the land.
- Furthermore, the court found out that all three of them operated in the same vicinity.
All that had transpired lead to the court to concluded that none of them were innocent. Therefore, the Federal Court had no choice but to side with the plaintiffs in this particular case.
The information provided on this website does not, and is not intended to, constitute legal advice; instead, all information, content, and materials available on this site are for general informational purposes only. Information on this website may not constitute the most up-to-date legal or other information.
For further inquiries, please email us at general@mathews.my.