Kenny Sim Chun Wei v Kuan Chen-Fui

Appellant(s): Kenny Sim Chun Wei

Respondent(s): Kuan Chen-Fui

• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Datuk Azhahari Kamal bin Ramli
• YA Dato' Ahmad Kamal Bin Md. Shahid

• The appellant, a real estate negotiator and head of department at a property firm, alleged the existence of an oral revenue-sharing agreement with the respondent (the firm's proprietor) regarding fees collected from various property development projects.
• Following his resignation, the appellant sought an account of all revenue and profits generated by his division, claiming he was entitled to a specific percentage of the balance after operating expenses and commissions were deducted.
• The High Court determined that while an oral agreement for profit-sharing did exist, it was unenforceable as it contravened statutory regulations governing the estate agency profession, prompting this appeal.

• Whether a revenue-sharing agreement between a registered estate agent and a non-registered negotiator is void for illegality under Section 24 of the Contracts Act 1950.
• Whether Rule 91 of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Rules 1986 distinguishes between the payment of a "commission" to staff and the "sharing of profits" with non-registered individuals.
• Whether the Court should intervene in the trial judge’s findings regarding the applicability of the "plainly wrong" test and the principles of restitution under Section 66 of the Contracts Act 1950.

• The Court affirmed that the agreement was void for illegality because Rule 91(1) of the Rules expressly prohibits a registered estate agent from allowing a non-registered person to participate in the profits of professional agency work.
• The Court held that while Rule 91(2) permits a negotiator to receive a commission not exceeding 40%, the appellant’s claim was for a share of the net profits (revenue-sharing), which falls outside this exception and undermines the professional integrity intended by the Act.
• The Court dismissed the appeal, concluding that the appellant was disabled from claiming loss of profits under a void contract and that the High Court was not "plainly wrong" in its judicial appreciation of the statutory prohibitions.