DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN

DPI TECHNOLOGY SDN BHD 1. ) HO FOO 2. ) SENG SWEE YIN

Defendants breached both the consent judgment and the SPA by failing to obtain rectification, a new title and remove caveats within the stipulated period and by failing to effect transfer; the delay and failure to disclose the material land dispute amounted to misrepresentation and non-performance entitling the Plaintiff to rescind the SPA under s19 and s40 Contracts Act 1950 and to recover the deposit, agreed liquidated damages and consequential rental losses.

Citation
BA-22NCvC-305-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: DPI Technology Sdn. Bhd.; Defendant: Ho Foo; Defendant: Seng Swee Yin
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
18 April 2025
Case Number
BA-22NCvC-305-07/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Sale of Land / Contract Dispute (high Court) / Full Trial Judgment (high Court); Appeal to Court of Appeal Noted
Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff: SPA rescinded; Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit, agreed liquidated damages, consequential rental losses, interest and costs.
Legal Topics
Sale and Purchase Agreement, Specific Performance, Rescission, Misrepresentation (fraudulent/negligent), Liquidated Damages, Consent Judgment as Contract, Section 40 Contracts Act 1950, Section 19 Contracts Act 1950, Consequential Damages, Limitation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property Law Equity and Remedies Civil Procedure Tort (misrepresentation) Sale and Purchase Agreement Specific Performance Rescission +7 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DPI Technology Sdn. Bhd.

Plaintiff

Ho Foo

Defendant

Seng Swee Yin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Sale of Land / Contract Dispute (high Court) / Full Trial Judgment (high Court); Appeal to Court of Appeal Noted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Defendants complied with the consent judgment (rectification, new title, removal of caveats, applications within time)
  2. 2 Whether Defendants breached the SPA by failing to effect transfer and keep Plaintiff informed
  3. 3 Whether Defendants made fraudulent, negligent or innocent misrepresentations about land size, disputes and ability/intention to perform

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants breached both the consent judgment and the SPA by failing to obtain rectification, a new title and remove caveats within the stipulated period and by failing to effect transfer; the delay and failure to disclose the material land dispute amounted to misrepresentation and non-performance entitling the Plaintiff to rescind the SPA under s19 and s40 Contracts Act 1950 and to recover the deposit, agreed liquidated damages and consequential rental losses.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Plaintiff: SPA rescinded; Plaintiff awarded refund of deposit, agreed liquidated damages, consequential rental losses, interest and costs.

Orders

  • Rescind and terminate the Sale and Purchase Agreement dated 3.3.2010 in favour of the Plaintiff
  • Refund to Plaintiff of the deposit sum of RM350,000.00