PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ASIANLAND REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) OYO ROOMS HOSPITALITY SDN BHD

PJ MIDTOWN DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD 1. ) ASIANLAND REALTY SDN BHD 2. ) OYO ROOMS HOSPITALITY SDN BHD

The Court granted summary judgment to PJ Midtown because the 13.12.2019 Agreement created a tenancy obligation, vacant possession was delivered, the fees due were ascertainable and the Guarantee was a valid, binding obligation of OYO MY (consideration present and signatory had apparent authority under the Turquand rule); the counterclaim by Asianland was struck out because it failed to comply with Order 15 Rule 3(1) ROC by not first counterclaiming against PJ Midtown, was procedurally defective and, in any event, its subject matter fell within the scope of an arbitration stay; a belated amendment to add PJ Midtown could not cure the fundamental defect and was not bona fide.

Citation
WA-22NCC-267-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff (main Suit): PJ Midtown Development Sdn Bhd; 1st Defendant (main Suit) and Plaintiff (counterclaim): Asianland Realty Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant (main Suit) and 1st Defendant (counterclaim): OYO Rooms Hospitality Sdn Bhd; 2nd Defendant (counterclaim): Oravel Stays Singapore Pte Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
2 May 2024
Case Number
WA-22NCC-267-05/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / Applications for Summary Judgment and Strike Out; Judgment on Applications
Outcome
Enclosure 19 allowed (summary judgment for PJ Midtown); Enclosures 23 and 25 allowed (Asialand’s Counterclaim struck out as against OYO MY and Oravel); Enclosure 67 dismissed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out / Abuse of Process, Guarantee and Indemnity, Authority and Turquand Rule, Non‑joinder (order 15 Rule 3), Arbitration Stay
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Company Law Arbitration Law Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out / Abuse of Process Guarantee and Indemnity Authority and Turquand Rule +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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJ Midtown Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff (main Suit)

Asianland Realty Sdn Bhd

1st Defendant (main Suit) and Plaintiff (counterclaim)

OYO Rooms Hospitality Sdn Bhd

2nd Defendant (main Suit) and 1st Defendant (counterclaim)

Oravel Stays Singapore Pte Limited

2nd Defendant (counterclaim)

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / Applications for Summary Judgment and Strike Out; Judgment on Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was appropriate on the contractual claim and guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the Guarantee was valid and binding on OYO MY (authority and consideration)
  3. 3 Whether Asianland’s counterclaim against OYO MY and Oravel was procedurally defective for non‑joinder under Order 15 Rule 3(1) ROC

Ratio Decidendi

The Court granted summary judgment to PJ Midtown because the 13.12.2019 Agreement created a tenancy obligation, vacant possession was delivered, the fees due were ascertainable and the Guarantee was a valid, binding obligation of OYO MY (consideration present and signatory had apparent authority under the Turquand rule); the counterclaim by Asianland was struck out because it failed to comply with Order 15 Rule 3(1) ROC by not first counterclaiming against PJ Midtown, was procedurally defective and, in any event, its subject matter fell within the scope of an arbitration stay; a belated amendment to add PJ Midtown could not cure the fundamental defect and was not bona fide.

Court Disposition

Enclosure 19 allowed (summary judgment for PJ Midtown); Enclosures 23 and 25 allowed (Asialand’s Counterclaim struck out as against OYO MY and Oravel); Enclosure 67 dismissed.

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for PJ Midtown Development Sdn Bhd against Asianland Realty Sdn Bhd and OYO Rooms Hospitality Sdn Bhd for the Outstanding Sum of RM1,196,385.48; costs awarded to PJ Midtown
  • Asialand Realty Sdn Bhd’s Counterclaim against OYO Rooms Hospitality Sdn Bhd and Oravel Stays Singapore Pte Limited struck out with costs (Enclosures 23 and 25 allowed)