Oasis Garden Development Sdn Bhd 1. ) Ranner Wolfgang 2. ) Leong Soo Leng

Oasis Garden Development Sdn Bhd 1. ) Ranner Wolfgang 2. ) Leong Soo Leng

High Court allowed the appeal in part because the Sessions Court erred in admitting the inspection reports (IDP-1 and IDP-2) absent proper proof under s90A and failure to call the maker; accordingly the award for inspection fees (RM3,710.00) was set aside. The remainder of the Sessions Court's findings that the Defendant breached Clause 29(3) by failing to produce the architect's certificate and Notices of Completion and by failing to rebut demands was affirmed as supported by evidence and permissible adverse inferences.

Citation
WA-12BNCvC-61-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Oasis Garden Development Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Ranner Wolfgang; Respondent/plaintiff: Leong Soo Leng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 March 2025
Case Number
WA-12BNCvC-61-05/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Determination of Appeal (high Court Judgment)
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment affirmed in part and set aside in part
Legal Topics
Defect Liability Period, Sale and Purchase Agreement (spa) Clause 29, Adverse Inference (s114 Evidence Act 1950), Computer Generated Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act 1950), Admissibility of Inspection Reports, Stakeholder/retention Sums
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Evidence Civil Procedure Defect Liability Period Sale and Purchase Agreement (spa) Clause 29 Adverse Inference (s114 Evidence Act 1950) Computer Generated Evidence (s90 a Evidence Act 1950) +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 Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Oasis Garden Development Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/defendant

Ranner Wolfgang

Respondent/plaintiff

Leong Soo Leng

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court / Determination of Appeal (high Court Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendant breached Clause 29(3) of the SPA by failing to produce an architect's certificate and Notices of Completion
  2. 2 Whether Plaintiffs complied with SPA procedures under Clause 29(2) before incurring repair costs
  3. 3 Whether an adverse inference under s114(g) Evidence Act 1950 was properly drawn against Defendant for not calling the architect

Ratio Decidendi

High Court allowed the appeal in part because the Sessions Court erred in admitting the inspection reports (IDP-1 and IDP-2) absent proper proof under s90A and failure to call the maker; accordingly the award for inspection fees (RM3,710.00) was set aside. The remainder of the Sessions Court's findings that the Defendant breached Clause 29(3) by failing to produce the architect's certificate and Notices of Completion and by failing to rebut demands was affirmed as supported by evidence and permissible adverse inferences.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; Sessions Court judgment affirmed in part and set aside in part

Orders

  • Appeal allowed in part
  • Set aside award for inspection fees of RM3,710.00 (prayer 1(c)) awarded by Sessions Court