Lau Tian Boon v Majestic Memorial Park (BS) Sdn Bhd

Court of Appeal · · Contract Law, Land & Property Law

IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: This digest provides AI-generated summaries of recent Malaysian legal judgments and is provided for general informational purposes only. The digest may contain errors, omissions, or inaccuracies, and does not constitute legal advice or a substitute for legal counsel. For complete and authoritative information, always consult a qualified legal professional and refer to official court sources (here) or the full text of original judgments. The providers of this digest accept no responsibility or liability for any loss and/or damage resulting from reliance on its contents.

Lau Tian Boon v Majestic Memorial Park (BS) Sdn Bhd
CourtCourt of Appeal
Judgment Date25 June 2025
Date Uploaded11 July 2025
Legal TopicsContract Law, Land & Property Law
Parties

Appellant(s): Lau Tian Boon (Sebagai Setiausaha Dan Wakil Bagi Kwang Kheow Seah, Bagan Serai, Krian (No. Pertubuhan: 1272/63 Perak )

Respondent(s): Majestic Memorial Park (Bs) Sdn Bhd

Bench
  • YA Datuk Supang Lian
  • YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
  • YA Dato' Ahmad Fairuz bin Zainol Abidin
Facts & Background
  • The appellant, representing an association, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with the respondent company in 2006 to develop and manage a columbarium on a piece of land.
  • The land in question was State reserved land, gazetted in 1932 as a cemetery for the Chinese community, with its ownership vested in the State Authority.
  • Disputes arose in 2018, leading the appellant's association to terminate the JVA, alleging breaches by the respondent, including failure to construct the agreed number of columbarium lots and outstanding payments.
Issues for the Court
  • The primary legal issue was whether the appellant's association possessed the necessary legal capacity or locus standi to enter into the Joint Venture Agreement concerning the State reserved land.
  • Whether the Joint Venture Agreement was void ab initio due to the association's lack of proprietary rights or authority over the land.
  • Whether the respondent was estopped from challenging the association's right to possession of the land under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1950.
Decision
  • The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appellant's appeal, affirming the High Court's decision to dismiss both the claim and counterclaim.
  • The Court held that the appellant's association lacked the legal capacity to enter into the JVA as the land was State reserved land, not alienated to the association, and there was no valid written appointment as maintainer at the material time.
  • Consequently, the JVA was declared void under Section 57(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 for being an agreement to do an impossible act, rendering the alleged breaches and termination academic, and Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1950 was found inapplicable.
Link to JudgmentView Full Judgment

Related judgments

📬 Found this useful?

Get daily AI-generated summaries of Malaysian legal judgments from the Federal Court and the Court of Appeal straight to your inbox, free!