One-Off is not “Practice” – Matad in response to JV Evolution Sdn Bhd case of Merdeka Palace Hotel Sale.
In the recent case of Corruption involved in Merdeka Palace Hotel Sale, 2026 – Federal Court judgment, for readings here:
Federal Court finds Isa Samad guilty of corruption – The Edge.
Referring to the use of a property agent – JV Evolution Sdn Bhd in the transaction of the deal, and such that this agent is not a legitimate Registered Estate Agency under BOVAEP, below is the finding of case laws, with relation to “One-Off” deal, which is NOT a “Practice”. Hence, not illegal under S.22B(1A) and S.22C(d) of VAEP Act, 1981.
So, the questions is “Matad principle”?
Yes, the case of Matad Sdn Bhd v Ng Chee Keong [2003] 2 MLRA 499 (“Matad”) is generally considered to remain good law in Malaysia, despite amendments to the Valuers, Appraisers, and Estate Agents Act 1981 in 2011 and 2017.
Recent court decisions, including Kunci Semangat v Thomas Varkki (2022), have confirmed that the principles in Matad still apply.
Here is a breakdown of why Matad remains relevant:
- One-Off Transactions: Matad established that an unlicensed person who engages in a single, isolated (“one-off”) transaction for a fee is not necessarily engaging in “estate agency practice”.
- Systemic Conduct Required: The court in Matad held that to be in breach of the Act, there must be evidence of a “system” or continuity of acts, rather than an isolated, casual act.
- Applicability After Amendments: Despite amendments to the Act (specifically Section 22B(1A)) which broadened the definition of estate agency practice, courts have continued to follow Matad, holding that a truly one-off introduction or transaction does not constitute illegal, unlicensed practice.
Importance of Pleading: A key, related principle reaffirmed in modern cases (relying on Matad and Mega Meisa) is that if a party wants to argue that a contract is illegal due to lack of a license, they must specifically plead this in their defence.
Cautionary Note: While Matad is good law, the courts will look closely at the facts. If the “one-off” act is part of a series of acts or resembles a professional business, it may still be considered illegal.
