COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN BHD (Company No: 1044344-D) ANAND RAJ GIRI A/L HARIPASAR GIRI

COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN BHD (Company No: 1044344-D) ANAND RAJ GIRI A/L HARIPASAR GIRI

The SPA took effect on 11 October 2017 when the Plaintiff signed the relevant documents and paid the deposit; the Sales Form did not prevail over the statutory SPA; payments were valid under the Housing Development regulations; the Plaintiff repudiated the SPA and the Deed of Revocation together with SPA clause 11 lawfully authorized the Developer to forfeit/deduct as agreed (including 10% of the purchase price), therefore the Magistrate's award in favour of the Plaintiff was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Citation
JA-11BNCvC-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant / Defendant: Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd; Respondent / Plaintiff: Anand Raj Giri a/l Haripasar Giri
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 April 2021
Case Number
JA-11BNCvC-12-10/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment (hearing and Decision)
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Effective Date of Contract, Repudiation, Deed of Revocation, Liquidated Damages, Statutory Contract, Validity of Payments
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Housing Development (control and Licensing) Law Civil Procedure Formation of Contract Effective Date of Contract Repudiation Deed of Revocation Liquidated Damages +2 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 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd

Appellant / Defendant

Anand Raj Giri a/l Haripasar Giri

Respondent / Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Judgment (hearing and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sale and purchase agreement (SPA) took effect on 11 October 2017 or 7 August 2018
  2. 2 Whether the Sales Form prevailed over the SPA or was collateral
  3. 3 Whether payments made were lawful under Regulation 11(2) of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989

Ratio Decidendi

The SPA took effect on 11 October 2017 when the Plaintiff signed the relevant documents and paid the deposit; the Sales Form did not prevail over the statutory SPA; payments were valid under the Housing Development regulations; the Plaintiff repudiated the SPA and the Deed of Revocation together with SPA clause 11 lawfully authorized the Developer to forfeit/deduct as agreed (including 10% of the purchase price), therefore the Magistrate's award in favour of the Plaintiff was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs

Orders

  • Appeal allowed with costs
  • Decision of the Magistrate dated 12 October 2020 set aside