FLORA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SRIDAYA EDU GROUP SDN BHD

FLORA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD SRIDAYA EDU GROUP SDN BHD

Defendant failed to raise a bona fide triable issue by affidavit or defence, was estopped by silence and by prior admissions/payments from denying tenancy or the invoiced sums and did not prove prejudice from delay; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate for the claimed amount with interest and costs.

Citation
BA-B52-72-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Parties
Plaintiff: Flora Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Sridaya Edu Group Sdn Bhd
Court
Sessions Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
29 June 2020
Case Number
BA-B52-72-10/2019 (Mahkamah Sesyen)
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (writ BA B52 72 10/2019) / Decision at Sessions Court (shah Alam) on Application for Summary Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's application for summary judgment allowed.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Laches, Estoppel, Late Payment Interest, Privity of Contract
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Equity Summary Judgment (order 14) Laches Estoppel Late Payment Interest +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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Flora Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Sridaya Edu Group Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application Under Order 14 (writ BA B52 72 10/2019) / Decision at Sessions Court (shah Alam) on Application for Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendant raised a triable issue to defeat summary judgment
  2. 2 Whether defendant was a tenant or estopped from denying tenancy
  3. 3 Whether doctrine of laches bars the claim

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to raise a bona fide triable issue by affidavit or defence, was estopped by silence and by prior admissions/payments from denying tenancy or the invoiced sums and did not prove prejudice from delay; therefore summary judgment under Order 14 was appropriate for the claimed amount with interest and costs.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's application for summary judgment allowed.

Orders

  • Judgment entered for the plaintiff in the sum of MYR 849,465.53.
  • Interest at 5.0% per annum from date of judgment until full settlement.