Sakinas Sdn Bhd v Siew Yik Hau

Sakinas Sdn Bhd v Siew Yik Hau

The deed of assignment was intended as security (by way of charge) and therefore did not fall within s4(3) Civil Law Act; the assignors (purchasers) retained capacity to sue and, given CCM's consent and lack of interest in the compensation, were not required to join CCM; s56(3) did not bar recovery because respondents did not accept performance in the sense of agreeing to a new performance date and giving notice; and under s75 Contracts Act the prescribed liquidated damages formula in the SPA constituted reasonable compensation recoverable without proof of actual loss in this context—summary judgment was properly granted.

Citation
Sakinas Sdn Bhd v Siew Yik Hau
Parties
Appellant (developer): Sakinas Sdn Bhd; Respondent (purchaser): Siew Yik Hau & Anor; Assignee / Finance Company: Credit Corp (M) Bhd (CCM)
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Against Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Chose in Action, Right to Sue and Joinder of Assignee, Acceptance of Late Performance and Notice Under S56(3), Liquidated Damages and S75 of Contracts Act, Housing Developers (control and Licensing) Regulations Impact on Remedies
Source Language
en
Contract Equity Land Law Civil Procedure Statutory Interpretation Assignment of Chose in Action Right to Sue and Joinder of Assignee Acceptance of Late Performance and Notice Under S56(3) +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sakinas Sdn Bhd

Appellant (developer)

Siew Yik Hau & Anor

Respondent (purchaser)

Credit Corp (M) Bhd (CCM)

Assignee / Finance Company

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Against Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of assignment was absolute or by way of charge and whether s4(3) Civil Law Act applied
  2. 2 Whether assignor (purchaser) retained locus to sue or was required to join assignee (CCM)
  3. 3 Whether taking vacant possession later without notice under s56(3) barred claim for compensation

Ratio Decidendi

The deed of assignment was intended as security (by way of charge) and therefore did not fall within s4(3) Civil Law Act; the assignors (purchasers) retained capacity to sue and, given CCM's consent and lack of interest in the compensation, were not required to join CCM; s56(3) did not bar recovery because respondents did not accept performance in the sense of agreeing to a new performance date and giving notice; and under s75 Contracts Act the prescribed liquidated damages formula in the SPA constituted reasonable compensation recoverable without proof of actual loss in this context—summary judgment was properly granted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Summary judgment below upheld