Letchemy Arumugam v N Annamalay (Facts and Held) PDF

Preview

Summary

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexisDate and Time: Tuesday, 20 July, 2021 3:24:00 PM MYTJob Number: 148731911Document (1)1. LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAYClient/Matter: -None-Search Terms: letchemy arumugam v annamalaySearch Type: Natural Langua...

Description

Date and Time: Tuesday, 20 July, 2021 3:24:00 PM MYT Job Number: 148731911

Document (1) 1. LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY Client/Matter: -NoneSearch Terms: letchemy arumugam v annamalay Search Type: Natural Language Narrowed by: Content Type MY Cases

Narrowed by -None-

| About LexisNexis | Privacy Policy | Terms & Conditions | Copyright © 2021 LexisNexis

LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY CaseAnalysis | [1982] 2 MLJ 198

LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY [1982] 2 MLJ 198

Court: Malaysia Original Civil Jurisdiction Judges:

WONG KIM FATT JC

Judgment Date:

4/2/1982

Catchwords & Digest

Contract — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent misrepresentation — Undue influence — Contracts Act 1950 (Act 136), ss 16(1) & 17 Land Law — Sale of land — Rescission — Fraudulent misrepresentation Legal Profession — Liability as fiduciary — Conflict of interest and duty Land Law — Sale of land — Duty of solicitor Held, allowing the claim and dismissing the counterclaim: (1) the plaintiff had proved fraudulent misrepresentation, the truth of which the defendant did not believe in. The six issues must be answered in favour of the plaintiff; (2) the agreement of 7 January 1977 relating to the sale of the land and the three agreements to the three sub-lots must be rescinded; (3) the plaintiff is entitled to damages for her losses arising out of the fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendant; (4) the defendant must not benefit from his fraudulent misrepresentation, and specific performance and damages claimed by him must be refused. Observations on the duty of an advocate and solicitor in a transaction

Summary : In this action the plaintiff, an illiterate Indian woman rubber tapper, claimed against the defendant a declaration and rescission of an agreement of sale dated January 7, 1977 and other documents executed by her, on the ground of false or fraudulent misrepresentation on the defendant's part relating to her land Lot 736, District of Port Dickson. She also claimed damages and interest. The defendant, a housing developer, denied the claim and counter-claimed for specific performance and damages. The parties listed six issues for determination by the court. The plaintiff sought to prove that the defendant with the aid of his advocate and solicitor had taken unfair advantage of her ignorance. The defendant had fraudulently misrepresented to her that she had to sign some documents, which were in the English language, for the loan she took from him and for the discharge of charge. She executed these documents not knowing she was in fact signing a sale agreement relating to her land and three other agreements for the purchase of 3 sub-lots in her own land. The defendant, however, contended that the documents in question were properly witnessed by his solicitor who had explained them to the plaintiff.

Page 2 of 4 LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY

Cases referring to this case

citationMATHAVI

A/P NARAYANASAMY v MURUGAN A/L KRISHNAN & ORS

10/6/2020 MYHC

[2020] MLJU 2062 Referred

neutralNG

SIEW LAN v JOHN LEE TSUN VUI & ANOR

[2017] 2 MLJ 167;

4/1/2017 MYFC

[2017] MLJU 22

Referred

citationOTHMAN

BIN MOHD. YAQUB @ TERRY v CHUNG MUI FATT & ORS

30/11/2010 MYHC

[2010] MLJU 1637 Referred

neutralCHUAH

TONG YEONG v KUALA LUMPUR GOLF & COUNTRY CLUB BHD [2003] 7 CLJ 180;

5/8/2003 MYHC

[2003] 6 MLJ 577

Referred

citationROKIAH

BINTI HASSAN v WAN ZULKIFLI BIN WAN OTHMAN & OTHERS

30/5/2003 MYHC

[2003] MLJU 354 Referred

cautionaryLOH

BEE TUAN v SHING YIN CONSTRUCTION (KOTA KINABALU) SDN BHD & ORS [2002] 2 AMR 2198; Referred

[2002] 3 CLJ 39;

[2002] 2 MLJ 532

12/3/2002 MYHC

Page 3 of 4 LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY

citationLOW

FANG BOO v LAY CHEE FOONG @ LYE CHEE FOONG

22/9/1998 MYHC

[1998] MLJU 338 Referred

cautionaryONG

BAN CHAI & ORS v SEAH SIANG MONG

1/6/1998 MYCA

[1998] 3 MLJ 346 Referred

neutralBUKIT

LENANG DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD v BASIRON BIN SUBHI

23/8/1997 MYHC

[1997] MLJU 150 Referred

cautionarySEAH

SIANG MONG v ONG BAN CHAI AND ANOTHER ACTION [1998] 1 CLJ Supp 295;

17/12/1996 MYHC

[1996] MLJU 484

Referred

neutralLEE

CHEONG FAH v SOO MAN YOKE

30/5/1996 MYHC

[1996] 2 MLJ 627 Referred

Cases considered by this case

DOYLE v OLBY (IRONMONGERS) LTD [1969] 2 All ER 119;

[1969] 2 QB 158;

[1969] 2 WLR 673

-

Page 4 of 4 LETCHEMY ARUMUGAM v N ANNAMALAY

Referred

-

LLOYDS BANK v BUNDY [1974] 3 All ER 757;

[1975] QB 326;

[1974] 3 WLR 501

Referred

-

RE CRAIG [1970] 2 All ER 390; Referred

End of Document

[1970] 2 WLR 1219...