SRI DAMANSAHA SDN BHD V. LIM AHAT KIAT @ LIM PEI TIAM

SRI DAMANSAHA SDN BHD V. LIM AHAT KIAT @ LIM PEI TIAM

Court held that delivery of vacant possession under the S&P for the factory context requires the provision/connection of water and electricity facilities as envisaged by clause 7; liquidated damages run until the date the utilities/meter installation were actually in place (here treated as 11.11.1992); there was no basis to disturb the magistrate's finding and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
SRI DAMANSAHA SDN BHD V. LIM AHAT KIAT @ LIM PEI TIAM
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Sri Damansara Sdn. Bhd.; Respondent/plaintiff: Lim Ahat Kiat @ Lim Pei Tiam
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1997
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Delivery of Vacant Possession, Liquidated Damages, Interpretation of Sale and Purchase Agreement, Utility Connection Obligations (water and Electricity), Practical Completion, Deemed Delivery
Source Language
en

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sri Damansara Sdn. Bhd.

Appellant/defendant

Lim Ahat Kiat @ Lim Pei Tiam

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appellate Judgment

  1. 1 What constitutes delivery of vacant possession for a factory under the sale and purchase agreement?
  2. 2 Whether delivery of vacant possession requires actual supply/flow of water and electricity or only provision/connection to mains/switchbox.
  3. 3 What is the proper terminus ad quem for computing agreed liquidated damages?

Ratio Decidendi

Court held that delivery of vacant possession under the S&P for the factory context requires the provision/connection of water and electricity facilities as envisaged by clause 7; liquidated damages run until the date the utilities/meter installation were actually in place (here treated as 11.11.1992); there was no basis to disturb the magistrate's finding and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Decision of lower court upheld