CITY INVESTMENT SDN

CITY INVESTMENT SDN

The Federal Court held Agreement No.1 was a housing development contract within the Housing Developers Act and Rules and binding as such without execution of the Clause 3 building contract; statutory terms (including r.12 obligations) are incorporated into the agreement; the appellants breached by failing to transfer and to deliver vacant possession; the contract is divisible so the court may order specific performance of transferable lots and award damages/indemnity for other losses; s.14 does not bar granting specific performance for part and awarding damages where the vendor is able but unwilling to perform and where the parts are separable.

Citation
CITY INVESTMENT SDN
Parties
Appellant / Vendor: City Investment Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent / Purchaser: Koperasi Serbaguna Cuepacs Tanggungan Bhd.
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1984
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (federal Court) / Final Judgment on Appeal Appeal and Cross Appeal Dismissed
Outcome
Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for respondents ordering specific performance in part and awarding damages and refunds as set out below; costs to respondents; deposit to be applied to taxed costs.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance Vs Damages (specific Relief Act), Application of Housing Developers (control and Licensing) Act/rules, Divisibility of Contract, Incorporation of Statutory Terms Into Contracts, Indemnity for Delay Under Housing Rules, Refund for Useless Lots
Source Language
en
Contract Law Equity Land Law Housing Law Statutory Interpretation Remedies Specific Performance Vs Damages (specific Relief Act) Application of Housing Developers (control and Licensing) Act/rules +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 Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Investment Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant / Vendor

Koperasi Serbaguna Cuepacs Tanggungan Bhd.

Respondent / Purchaser

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (federal Court) / Final Judgment on Appeal Appeal and Cross Appeal Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Agreement No.1 constituted a housing development contract under the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and 1970 Rules
  2. 2 Whether the enforcement of Clause 3 (building contract) was a condition precedent to liability
  3. 3 Whether s.14 Specific Relief Act precluded awarding both specific performance and damages

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held Agreement No.1 was a housing development contract within the Housing Developers Act and Rules and binding as such without execution of the Clause 3 building contract; statutory terms (including r.12 obligations) are incorporated into the agreement; the appellants breached by failing to transfer and to deliver vacant possession; the contract is divisible so the court may order specific performance of transferable lots and award damages/indemnity for other losses; s.14 does not bar granting specific performance for part and awarding damages where the vendor is able but unwilling to perform and where the parts are separable.

Court Disposition

Appeal and cross-appeal dismissed; judgment for respondents ordering specific performance in part and awarding damages and refunds as set out below; costs to respondents; deposit to be applied to taxed costs.

Orders

  • Specific performance: transfer of remaining 59 terrace lots under Agreement No.1 to respondents
  • Specific performance: transfer of remaining 13 semi-detached lots and 1 bungalow lot under Agreement No.2 to respondents (particulars as per Court schedule)