ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD 2. ) HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD

ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD 1. ) MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD 2. ) HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD

The Plaintiff signed and accepted the Final Extension Letter fixing expiry at 30.6.2023; no contractual right of renewal or other admissible evidence created a triable issue; the counterclaim is independent and suitable for summary judgment; the Plaintiff is bound by tender privilege/waiver clauses and lacks locus to challenge the share sale; legitimate expectation is inapplicable to this private commercial dispute; accordingly summary judgment on the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was allowed and costs awarded, with entitlement to double rent under s28(4)(a) Civil Law Act.

Citation
WA-22NCC-399-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 September 2023
Case Number
WA-22NCC-399-06/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial Tenancy Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application on Counterclaim (order 14 Rule 5 Roc)
Outcome
Application allowed in favour of the 1st Defendant; summary judgment entered on the 1st Defendant's counterclaim
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Vacant Possession, Holding Over, Double Rent, Tender Process, Legitimate Expectation, Privity of Contract, Rent Withholding
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Civil Procedure Property Law Administrative Law Summary Judgment Vacant Possession Holding Over Double Rent +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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIAN KITCHEN (M) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MENARA KUALA LUMPUR SDN BHD

1st Defendant

HYDROSHOPPE SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial Tenancy Dispute) / Summary Judgment Application on Counterclaim (order 14 Rule 5 Roc)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment on the 1st Defendant's counterclaim is appropriate
  2. 2 Whether there are triable issues arising from the change of ownership and tender process
  3. 3 Whether the doctrine of legitimate expectation prevents summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Plaintiff signed and accepted the Final Extension Letter fixing expiry at 30.6.2023; no contractual right of renewal or other admissible evidence created a triable issue; the counterclaim is independent and suitable for summary judgment; the Plaintiff is bound by tender privilege/waiver clauses and lacks locus to challenge the share sale; legitimate expectation is inapplicable to this private commercial dispute; accordingly summary judgment on the 1st Defendant's counterclaim was allowed and costs awarded, with entitlement to double rent under s28(4)(a) Civil Law Act.

Court Disposition

Application allowed in favour of the 1st Defendant; summary judgment entered on the 1st Defendant's counterclaim

Orders

  • Declaration that the tenancy expired on 30.6.2023
  • Order for vacant possession of the Demised Premises to be delivered to the 1st Defendant