DR. LOOI MUN CHOON 1. PARAGON PROMENDADE SDN BHD 2. PARAGRENE LAND SDN BHD

DR. LOOI MUN CHOON 1. PARAGON PROMENDADE SDN BHD 2. PARAGRENE LAND SDN BHD

The strike‑out application failed because the plaintiff's pleaded representative claim was not plainly or obviously unsustainable on its face: s22C HDA does not deprive homebuyers of locus to sue; s143 SMA does not preclude individual purchasers from suing for private law breaches of the SPA; the statutory deposit under s92 SMA does not make contractual/misrepresentation claims premature; and the representative mode was appropriate under O.15 r.12 for common grievances, therefore the matter must proceed to trial.

Citation
BA-22NCVC-55-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: DR. LOOI MUN CHOON; 1st Defendant: PARAGON PROMENADE SDN BHD; 2nd Defendant: PARAGRENE LAND SDN BHD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 December 2021
Case Number
BA-22NCVC-55-02/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Representative Action (sale and Purchase Agreement; Misrepresentation) / Interlocutory — Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012
Outcome
Application to strike out dismissed.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreement, Representative Action, Locus Standi Under Housing Development Act S22 C, Striking Out Pleadings, Statutory Deposit for Defects (strata Management Act)
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Property/strata Law Housing Law Civil Procedure Tort (misrepresentation) Misrepresentation Breach of Sale and Purchase Agreement Representative Action +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DR. LOOI MUN CHOON

Plaintiff

PARAGON PROMENADE SDN BHD

1st Defendant

PARAGRENE LAND SDN BHD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Representative Action (sale and Purchase Agreement; Misrepresentation) / Interlocutory — Application to Strike Out Under Order 18 R.19 Rules of Court 2012

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the representative plaintiff and class have locus standi despite non‑service of notices under s22C HDA
  2. 2 Whether claims concerning common property must be brought by the JMB/management corporation under Strata Management Act s143
  3. 3 Whether the deposit made under s92 SMA renders the plaintiff's contractual/misrepresentation claim premature

Ratio Decidendi

The strike‑out application failed because the plaintiff's pleaded representative claim was not plainly or obviously unsustainable on its face: s22C HDA does not deprive homebuyers of locus to sue; s143 SMA does not preclude individual purchasers from suing for private law breaches of the SPA; the statutory deposit under s92 SMA does not make contractual/misrepresentation claims premature; and the representative mode was appropriate under O.15 r.12 for common grievances, therefore the matter must proceed to trial.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out dismissed.

Orders

  • Application in enclosure 24 dismissed.
  • 1st Defendant to pay costs of RM 3,000 to the Plaintiff.