RHB Bank Berhad v Tee Ban Tiong

Appellant(s): Rhb Bank Berhad

Respondent(s): Tee Ban Tiong

• YA Dato' Paduka Azman Bin Abdullah
• YA Datuk Mohamed Zaini Bin Mazlan
• YA Datuk Hayatul Akmal binti Abdul Aziz

• The dispute arose from a public auction sale of two shop lots in Ipoh, where the purchaser paid a 10% deposit but failed to settle the balance 90%, leading the bank to terminate the sale contract in 2007.
• After protracted litigation spanning multiple appeals, the Court of Appeal in 2020 remitted the matter back to the Sessions Court for reassessment of damages, which was ultimately assessed at RM863,795.37 in 2022 and upheld by the High Court in 2024.
• The bank appealed against the High Court's decision affirming the Sessions Court's damages award, challenging the quantum and methodology of assessment covering loss of property value, rental claims, deposit refund, and legal fees.

• Whether the lower courts applied the correct legal principles under section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950 in assessing damages for breach of contract, particularly regarding the temporal nexus between the breach date and the valuation date used.
• Whether the rental claim spanning over 15 years (2007–2022) was properly proven and causally linked to the breach, and whether the purchaser had failed in his duty to mitigate losses.
• Whether the appellate court should interfere with the quantum of damages awarded by the courts below, and the applicable threshold for such interference.

• The Court held that appellate interference in quantum is only warranted where the trial court erred in law, took into account irrelevant considerations, omitted relevant material, or made a wholly erroneous estimate of damages, and found such errors present here.
• The Court set aside the award for loss of property value (RM350,000.00), holding that a 2020 valuation could not automatically serve as the measure of loss for a 2007 breach without clear evidentiary linkage, and similarly set aside the 15-year rental claim for lack of sufficient proof of causation, quantum, and mitigation.
• The Court upheld the deposit refund claim (subject to being pursued via the Unclaimed Moneys Registrar) but disallowed the RM5,000.00 legal fees award as it was not properly categorised as recoverable damages; the appeal was allowed with costs of RM50,000.00, and the sums already paid to the respondent were ordered to be refunded to the appellant.