Euroland & Development Sdn Bhd Supreme Code Land Sdn Bhd

Euroland & Development Sdn Bhd Supreme Code Land Sdn Bhd

The Court upheld the trial judge: the SPAs were validly executed and supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony; payments made to the defendant's panel solicitors and confirmed by defendant's officers constituted payment for the units and rebutted the defendant's SOP/non‑receipt and forgery allegations; there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff to a gambling junket; double sales occurred and liability lay with the defendant; consequently the appellant's appeal was dismissed and the respondent's cross‑appeal (seeking variation of remedies/damages) was allowed in the terms ordered.

Citation
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1248-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Euroland & Development Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff: Supreme Code Land Sdn Bhd
Court
NCvC
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 April 2024
Case Number
W-02(NCvC)(W)-1248-09/2020 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Appellate Disposition)
Outcome
Appellant's appeal dismissed; Respondent's cross‑appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Housing Development Account, Double Sale (double Booking), Alleged Fraud/forgery, Rebate/discounts, Costs
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Equity (specific Performance) Civil Procedure Evidence Law Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Agreement Housing Development Account +4 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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Euroland & Development Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant

Supreme Code Land Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract/property) / Court of Appeal Judgment (final Appellate Disposition)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) were valid and binding
  2. 2 Whether payment had to be made into the Defendant's Housing Development Account and who bore the risk of payment routing
  3. 3 Whether internal SOP non-compliance or lack of board resolution invalidated the SPAs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court upheld the trial judge: the SPAs were validly executed and supported by documentary evidence and witness testimony; payments made to the defendant's panel solicitors and confirmed by defendant's officers constituted payment for the units and rebutted the defendant's SOP/non‑receipt and forgery allegations; there was no evidence connecting the plaintiff to a gambling junket; double sales occurred and liability lay with the defendant; consequently the appellant's appeal was dismissed and the respondent's cross‑appeal (seeking variation of remedies/damages) was allowed in the terms ordered.

Court Disposition

Appellant's appeal dismissed; Respondent's cross‑appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appellant/Defendant main appeal dismissed with costs of RM25000 to the Plaintiff/Respondent
  • Respondent/Plaintiff cross‑appeal (Enclosure 11 prayers 4(a)(i)-(iv), (b)(i)-(iv), (c) and (d)(i)-(iv)) allowed with costs of RM5000 to the Respondent