CHUAN LEONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI GCS INFINITI HOME SDN. BHD.) 1. ) TANG YICK CHONG 2. ) WONG YOKE PING

CHUAN LEONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. (DAHULUNYA DIKENALI SEBAGAI GCS INFINITI HOME SDN. BHD.) 1. ) TANG YICK CHONG 2. ) WONG YOKE PING

Appeal allowed because the appellant raised bona fide triable issues as to whether the earnest deposit was received by the developer and whether there was an unqualified acceptance on 30.7.2014; those factual disputes (including the role of solicitors as stakeholder or agent) were material to the date of contract...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-52-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant: CHUAN LEONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; Respondent: TANG YICK CHONG; Respondent: WONG YOKE PING
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
11 July 2023
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-52-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Sessions Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court; costs awarded to appellant
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Liquidated Ascertained Damages, Sales and Purchase Agreement, Earnest Deposit, Stakeholder Vs Agent, Triable Issue, Date of Contract
Contract Law Housing Development Law Civil Procedure Property Law Summary Judgment Liquidated Ascertained Damages Sales and Purchase Agreement Earnest Deposit +3 more

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CHUAN LEONG DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Appellant

TANG YICK CHONG

Respondent

WONG YOKE PING

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal Remitting Matter to Sessions Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory SPA took effect from the LOI/earnest deposit date or from the SPA date
  2. 2 Whether the earnest deposit was received by the developer or held by solicitors as stakeholder/agent
  3. 3 Whether factual disputes raised constitute triable issues defeating an Order 14 summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Appeal allowed because the appellant raised bona fide triable issues as to whether the earnest deposit was received by the developer and whether there was an unqualified acceptance on 30.7.2014; those factual disputes (including the role of solicitors as stakeholder or agent) were material to the date of contract and LAD calculation and therefore precluded entry of summary judgment; matter remitted to Sessions Court for full adjudication.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment set aside; matter remitted to Sessions Court; costs awarded to appellant

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Summary judgment entered by the Sessions Court set aside