NUSAJAYA LAND SDN BHD MILLION LAND SDN BHD

NUSAJAYA LAND SDN BHD MILLION LAND SDN BHD

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant was not party to the earlier S&P agreements and the successor-in-title clause cannot bind a stranger absent privity or express incorporation by reference; consequently the writ and statement of claim were properly struck out under Order 18 R 19(1)(b) and (d) RC 2012.

Citation
JA-11ANCVC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Nusajaya Land Sdn Bhd (previously Prolink Nusajaya Sdn Bhd); Respondent/defendant: Million Land Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
14 September 2020
Case Number
JA-11ANCVC-4-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court Against Dismissal of Appeal From Magistrate Court Strike Out Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Privity of Contract, Successor in Title Clause, Maintenance and Service Charges, Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012, Incorporation by Reference, Unjust Enrichment (raised But Not Considered), Easement (raised Late)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Civil Procedure Privity of Contract Successor in Title Clause Maintenance and Service Charges Strike Out Under Order 18 R 19(1)(b) and (d) Rules of Court 2012 Incorporation by Reference +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nusajaya Land Sdn Bhd (previously Prolink Nusajaya Sdn Bhd)

Appellant/plaintiff

Million Land Sdn Bhd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal to High Court Against Dismissal of Appeal From Magistrate Court Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a successor in title clause in an earlier sale and purchase agreement can bind a subsequent purchaser who is not party to that agreement
  2. 2 Whether a purchaser who benefits from services can be bound to pay where there is no privity absent incorporation by reference
  3. 3 Whether the claim is plain and obvious and properly struck out under Order 18 R 19(1)(b) and (d) RC 2012

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the defendant was not party to the earlier S&P agreements and the successor-in-title clause cannot bind a stranger absent privity or express incorporation by reference; consequently the writ and statement of claim were properly struck out under Order 18 R 19(1)(b) and (d) RC 2012.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal dismissed
  • Order striking out the writ and statement of claim is upheld