CHANG PENG SOON 1. SIM AH MOW 2. TAY LI PING

CHANG PENG SOON 1. SIM AH MOW 2. TAY LI PING

The High Court held the SPA was authentic and the plaintiffs had performed their obligations; the defendant admitted the SPA and raised only factual complaints about background and due diligence which did not amount to vitiating factors or a bona fide triable defence; therefore the defence and counterclaim were obviously unsustainable and summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 and striking out under Order 18 r.19 were properly granted; the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Citation
JB-12ANCVC-2-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: Chang Peng Soon; Respondent: Sim Ah Mow; Respondent: Tay Li Ping
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 March 2021
Case Number
JB-12ANCVC-2-04/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment (hearing and Judgment)
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14 R.1), Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 R.19), Privity of Contract, Sale and Purchase of Shares, Specific Performance, Abuse of Process
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Company Law Summary Judgment (order 14 R.1) Striking Out Pleadings (order 18 R.19) Privity of Contract Sale and Purchase of Shares Specific Performance +1 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 5 Authorities cited 35 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chang Peng Soon

Appellant

Sim Ah Mow

Respondent

Tay Li Ping

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Sessions Court Judgment (hearing and Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether striking out the amended statement of defence and counterclaim under Order 18 r.19 was justified
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 was properly entered
  3. 3 Whether the defendant raised any triable issue or bona fide defence

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held the SPA was authentic and the plaintiffs had performed their obligations; the defendant admitted the SPA and raised only factual complaints about background and due diligence which did not amount to vitiating factors or a bona fide triable defence; therefore the defence and counterclaim were obviously unsustainable and summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 and striking out under Order 18 r.19 were properly granted; the appeals were dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Appeals dismissed with costs
  • Order granting summary judgment under Order 14 r.1 in favour of the plaintiffs affirmed