1. ) WONG YONG FOOK 2. ) WONG HONG HWA COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD.

1. ) WONG YONG FOOK 2. ) WONG HONG HWA COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD.

The High Court dismissed all three appeals and affirmed the Sessions Court: defendants failed to show the plaintiff's claim was plainly and obviously unsustainable; the effective payment including promotional rebate exceeded 10% so the HDR deposit complaint was misconceived; even if HDR contravention were established, that would not automatically void the SPA; defendants raised no triable issues to defeat summary judgment and their counterclaim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action; specific performance and striking out of the counterclaim were correctly ordered.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-59-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: WONG YONG FOOK; Appellant/defendant: WONG HONG HWA; Respondent/plaintiff: COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 March 2023
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-59-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court (civil) / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals
Outcome
All appeals dismissed; Sessions Court decisions affirmed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Strike Out of Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Housing Development (control and Licensing) Regulations 1989, Deposit Requirements, Illegality and Public Policy
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Housing Civil Procedure Specific Performance Strike Out of Pleadings Summary Judgment Housing Development (control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WONG YONG FOOK

Appellant/defendant

WONG HONG HWA

Appellant/defendant

COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN BHD

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court (civil) / Judgment on Consolidated Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether collection of deposit less than 10% under HDR renders the sale and purchase agreement void
  2. 2 Whether the SPA is unenforceable under s.24 of the Contract Act 1950 on public policy/illegality grounds
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff satisfied conditions for summary judgment and whether defendants raised triable issues

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court dismissed all three appeals and affirmed the Sessions Court: defendants failed to show the plaintiff's claim was plainly and obviously unsustainable; the effective payment including promotional rebate exceeded 10% so the HDR deposit complaint was misconceived; even if HDR contravention were established, that would not automatically void the SPA; defendants raised no triable issues to defeat summary judgment and their counterclaim did not disclose a reasonable cause of action; specific performance and striking out of the counterclaim were correctly ordered.

Court Disposition

All appeals dismissed; Sessions Court decisions affirmed

Orders

  • Appeals JA-12ANCvC-59-06/2022, JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 and JA-12ANCvC-61-06/2022 dismissed
  • Affirmed decision dismissing defendants' application to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim