Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd K3 Properties Sdn Bhd

Twin Pavilion Development Sdn Bhd K3 Properties Sdn Bhd

On the balance of probabilities the developer failed to prove its counterclaim: the developer itself breached contractual obligations (failed to obtain DBKL approvals and to pay land premium), those failures caused banking/payment delays, developer did not give prior notice or invoice for late charges and sought late charges only after suit was filed; therefore counterclaim for late payment charges/interest is denied and the Sessions Court decision is upheld.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-61-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/defendan: TWIN PAVILION DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (888470-W); Responden/plaintif: K3 PROPERTIES SDN BHD (862779-H)
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 March 2023
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-61-05/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Rayuan ditolak; Tuntutan Balas Perayu/Defendan ditolak; keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Delay Damages/late Payment Charges, Vacant Possession, Estoppel, Illegality, Res Judicata, Interest
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Construction Law Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Breach of Contract Delay Damages/late Payment Charges Vacant Possession +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

TWIN PAVILION DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD (888470-W)

Perayu/defendan

K3 PROPERTIES SDN BHD (862779-H)

Responden/plaintif

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether delay in milestone/progress payments by purchaser constituted breach of the Sale and Purchase Agreements
  2. 2 Whether any delay was caused by the developer's failure to obtain statutory approvals and pay land premium
  3. 3 Whether developer was entitled to late payment charges/interest under the Agreements

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities the developer failed to prove its counterclaim: the developer itself breached contractual obligations (failed to obtain DBKL approvals and to pay land premium), those failures caused banking/payment delays, developer did not give prior notice or invoice for late charges and sought late charges only after suit was filed; therefore counterclaim for late payment charges/interest is denied and the Sessions Court decision is upheld.

Court Disposition

Rayuan ditolak; Tuntutan Balas Perayu/Defendan ditolak; keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen dikekalkan

Orders

  • Tuntutan Balas Perayu/Defendan ditolak
  • Menegahkan keputusan Mahkamah Sesyen