HOSNA REALTY SDN. BHD. ADAP 4ORTY GLOBAL SDN. BHD.

HOSNA REALTY SDN. BHD. ADAP 4ORTY GLOBAL SDN. BHD.

The contract was not illegal on its face; performance became impossible due to inability to obtain or transfer required quarry and explosives licences through no fault of either party; the contract was thereby frustrated under section 57(2) and both parties were discharged from further obligations, so both claim and counterclaim are dismissed.

Citation
KA-22NCvC-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim: HOSNA REALTY SDN BHD; Defendant / Plaintiff to Counterclaim: ADAP 4ORTY GLOBAL SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2025
Case Number
KA-22NCvC-24-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit / Judgment (post Trial)
Outcome
Contract frustrated and discharged; Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; mutual costs order made
Legal Topics
Frustration, Illegality, Licensing Requirements, Damages, Termination
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Administrative Law Regulatory Law Frustration Illegality Licensing Requirements Damages Termination

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

HOSNA REALTY SDN BHD

Plaintiff / Defendant to Counterclaim

ADAP 4ORTY GLOBAL SDN BHD

Defendant / Plaintiff to Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit / Judgment (post Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the contract was illegal or void for lack of requisite quarry or explosives licences
  2. 2 Whether the contract was frustrated under Section 57(2) of the Contracts Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether either party is entitled to relief or damages for breach

Ratio Decidendi

The contract was not illegal on its face; performance became impossible due to inability to obtain or transfer required quarry and explosives licences through no fault of either party; the contract was thereby frustrated under section 57(2) and both parties were discharged from further obligations, so both claim and counterclaim are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Contract frustrated and discharged; Plaintiff's claim dismissed; Defendant's counterclaim dismissed; mutual costs order made

Orders

  • The Plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed.