Jayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & JamilJayadeep Hari & Jamil
  • About
  • Our People
    • Partners
    • Consultant
    • Associates
  • Practice Areas
  • Publications
    • Legal Updates
    • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
    • Articles
    • News & Bulletin
  • We Care
  • Careers
  • Contact Us

Legal Update 22 of 2020

    Home Legal Updates Legal Update 22 of 2020
    NextPrevious

    Legal Update 22 of 2020

    By jhj admin | Legal Updates | 0 comment | 14 January, 2021 | 0

    Can a purchaser claim for the potential loss of profit on a property successfully bid at an auction if the property bid is subsequently claimed by someone else later?

    Case:

    PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK PEJABAT TANAH DAN GALIAN SELANGOR & ANOR v. LAU YONG YING [2020] 5 CLJ 164

    Brief Facts:

    • Lau Yong Ying (“Lau”) had successfully bid for a property at a public auction (“Property”) at a price stated as RM3.51 million.

     

    • Lau claimed that she had paid RM351,000 as ten per cent (10%) deposit (“Deposit”).

     

    • Lau obtained a loan from Alliance Islamic Bank to finance the purchase of the Property for RM3,211,900.

     

    • Before the transaction could be completed, Bank of Punjab (“BOP”) intervened, claiming ownership of the Property by virtue of an Anti-Money Laundering Act 2001 (“AMLA”) vesting order.

     

    • An application was filed by BOP in the High Court against both the Pendaftar Hakmilik Pejabat Tanah dan Galian Selangor (“Selangor Land Office”) and Lau which was successful.

     

    • The High Court found that the Selangor Land Office were liable in negligence because they failed to endorse a notice of seizure on the title to the Property after having been served with the same by the police.

     

    • The parties appealed all the way to the Federal Court but were unsuccessful.

     

    • As it transpired, the Property was previously purchased by a Pakistani criminal using proceeds obtained by cheating the BOP and therefore, the BOP were able to obtain a vesting order under section 61 of AMLA.

     

    • Lau was completely unaware of the vesting order nor was she aware that the Property had been seized by the Malaysian police prior to her successfully bidding the same.

     

    • Lau sued the Selangor Land Office and another claiming that she had suffered losses as a result of their negligence. She claimed for the refund of Deposit, loss of her Property and all associated costs of acquiring the Property including payments of the bank loan, loss of profit for re-sale of the Property, lawyer’s fees and other miscellaneous payments made to upkeep the Property whilst litigation was on-going.

     

    • The High Court allowed Lau’s claim and Lau was awarded damages in the total sum of RM9,396,088-86.

     

    • The Selangor Land Office therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal on the basis that the total amount awarded by the trial judge was wrong and erroneous for failing to give due consideration to the fact that the claim was wholly baseless, without sufficient evidence, unreasonable and contained an element of double counting.

     

    • Lau showed proof that she had entered into a SPA to sell the property for RM7.2million

    COURT OF APPEAL DECISION – APPEAL ALLOWED IN PART!

    The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal in part on the following basis:

     

    • The court allowed Lau’s claim for loss in value of the Property as the court found that it was a reasonable amount which must be granted as compensation to Lau especially since there was evidence she had agreed to sell the Property.

     

    • The court also granted Lau’s claim for legal fees incurred as the court was of the view that the lawyers’ invoices clearly showed that the invoices were addressed to Lau, which meant that Lau had to pay or had paid the amount stated in the invoices.

     

    • The court however dismissed all other claims, including the claim for Deposit, because to allow both the claims for loss of Deposit and the loss of profit on the resale of the Property would essentially profit Lau which the law did not allow.
    No tags.

    jhj admin

    More posts by jhj admin

    Related Post

    • Legal Update 9 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a civil servant be dismissed from employment by a local authority without affording him the right to be heard? Case: PIHAK BERKUASA TATATERTIB MAJLIS PERBANDARAN SEBERANG PERAI & ANOR v. MUZIADI MUKHTAR [2020] 1Read more

    • Legal Update 10 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the payment of quit rent, assessment rates, electricity and water bills be used to prove ownership of property? Case: HS REALTY SDN BHD v. YOW HONG SOON [2020] 1 LNS 230 Brief Facts: HSRead more

    • Legal Update 11 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can accused persons who are convicted of disobeying the Movement Control Order appeal for alternative punishment instead of imprisonment in the interest of justice? Case: CHIN CHEE WEI & ANOR V PP [2020] 1 LNSRead more

    • Legal Update 12 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can a foreign national have a permanent contract of employment? Case: AHMAD ZAHRI MIRZA ABDUL HAMID v. AIMS CYBERJAYA SDN BHD [2020] 1 LNS 494 Brief Facts: Ahmad, an expatriate, received a letter of appointmentRead more

    • Legal Update 13 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can the giving of legal advice by an adjudged bankrupt, whose practising certificate has been suspended, amount to practising law in contravention of the Legal Profession Act 1976? Case: DARSHAN SINGH KHAIRA v. ZULKEFLI HASHIMRead more

    • Legal Update 14 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Can individual parcel owners enforce rights relating to common property on their own behalf? Case: SYARIKAT EAST COAST & ORS v. MAKNA MUJUR SDN BHD & ORS [2020] 2 MLRA 440 Brief Facts: Syarikat EastRead more

    • Legal Update 15 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      When is the point of time when a debtor is considered to be unable to pay his debts? Case: AFFIN BANK BERHAD V. ABU BAKAR ISMAIL [2020] 2 MLRA 99 Brief Facts: Affin Bank BerhadRead more

    • Legal Update 16 of 2020

      By jhj admin | 0 comment

      Whether an article containing allegations of corrupt practices and giving of bribes was defamatory to the owner of an education institution? Case: EAGLE ONE INVESTMENT LTD & ORS V. ASIA PACIFIC HIGHER LEARNING SDN BHDRead more

    Leave a Comment

    Cancel reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    NextPrevious

    JHJ Bulletin

    • S.Jeyaraman: The Magic of Memory
    • Andreas Dorn: Your Unconscious Mind on Change and Money

    Legal Updates

    • Legal Update 22 of 2022
    • Legal Update 21 of 2022
    • Legal Update 20 of 2022
    • Legal Update 19 of 2022
    • Legal Update 18 of 2022
    • Legal Update 17 of 2022
    • Legal Update 16 of 2022

    Legal Cauldron

    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 1 of 2016

      Click here to view & download
    • 2
      0

      Legal Cauldron 2 of 2015

      Click here to view & download
    Copyright 2017 All Rights Reserved Contact Us         Like & Follow Us On:Facebook | Instagram | LinkedIn Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
    • About
    • Our People
      • Partners
      • Consultant
      • Associates
    • Practice Areas
    • Publications
      • Legal Updates
      • Legal Cauldron (Temporary suspended)
      • Articles
      • News & Bulletin
    • We Care
    • Careers
    • Contact Us
    Jayadeep Hari & Jamil