ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD XXXX

ENCORP ISKANDAR DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD XXXX

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary evidence (financiers' letters and UOB end financing agreement) and the Developer's own conduct of continuing to service progressive interest after the 48-month period, the DIBS obligation was not limited to the 48-month contract period but extended until actual delivery of vacant possession; ambiguities construed against the drafting Developer and estoppel barred the Developer from denying its conduct — appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.

Citation
B-02(NCvC)(W)-779-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/developer: Encorp Iskandar Development Sdn Bhd; Respondents/purchasers: Multiple purchasers (Respondents)
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
27 August 2025
Case Number
B-02(NCvC)(W)-779-04/2022 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Court of Appeal Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed
Legal Topics
Contract Interpretation, Developer Interest Bearing Scheme (dibs), Vacant Possession, Contra Preferentum Rule, Estoppel (equitable), Adverse Inference Under Evidence Act
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property/strata Law Banking and Finance Equity and Estoppel Civil Procedure Evidence Contract Interpretation Developer Interest Bearing Scheme (dibs) +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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Encorp Iskandar Development Sdn Bhd

Appellant/developer

Multiple purchasers (Respondents)

Respondents/purchasers

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Court of Appeal Final Judgment (appeal Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Developer was contractually required under the DIBS agreement to bear progressive interest until delivery of vacant possession inclusive of delays beyond the 48 months contractual period

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts and contemporaneous documentary evidence (financiers' letters and UOB end financing agreement) and the Developer's own conduct of continuing to service progressive interest after the 48-month period, the DIBS obligation was not limited to the 48-month contract period but extended until actual delivery of vacant possession; ambiguities construed against the drafting Developer and estoppel barred the Developer from denying its conduct — appeal dismissed and High Court decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court judgment affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • High Court decision allowing Respondents' claim affirmed