MASKIARA PROPERTY HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 881034-V) NORISHAM BIN IBRAHIM

MASKIARA PROPERTY HOLDINGS SDN BHD (NO. SYARIKAT: 881034-V) NORISHAM BIN IBRAHIM

The Court held that by accepting intermittent payments and negotiating after the completion date the vendor enlarged time and affirmed the SPA by conduct, estopping it from treating time as strictly of the essence; the defendant breached the SPA by ceasing payments after 8.3.2016 and could not validly rescind after the plaintiff commenced suit; the plaintiff validly elected specific performance rather than rescission and was entitled to the balance purchase price and contractual interest; defences of laches, hardship and illegality of interest failed; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the High Court decision affirmed.

Citation
W-02(NCVC)(W)-874-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Maskiara Property Holdings Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Norisham bin Ibrahim
Court
NCVC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 May 2021
Case Number
W-02(NCVC)(W)-874-05/2019 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract Dispute) / Determination by Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Rescission of Contract, Estoppel, Liquidated Damages, Laches, Interest, Restitution
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Equity Civil Procedure Specific Performance Rescission of Contract Estoppel Liquidated Damages Laches +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Maskiara Property Holdings Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Defendant

Norisham bin Ibrahim

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract Dispute) / Determination by Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 8 of the SPA permitting termination and forfeiture applies in the circumstances
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is liable for the remaining balance of the purchase price and entitled to specific performance
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's amended statement of claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that by accepting intermittent payments and negotiating after the completion date the vendor enlarged time and affirmed the SPA by conduct, estopping it from treating time as strictly of the essence; the defendant breached the SPA by ceasing payments after 8.3.2016 and could not validly rescind after the plaintiff commenced suit; the plaintiff validly elected specific performance rather than rescission and was entitled to the balance purchase price and contractual interest; defences of laches, hardship and illegality of interest failed; accordingly the appeal is dismissed and the High Court decision affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; High Court decision affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed and decision of the High Court dated 17.4.2018 affirmed
  • Cost of RM7,000 awarded to the plaintiff payable to the plaintiff subject to the allocator