ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain

ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD LEE KEAN HWA dan 61 yang lain

The Federal Court held that the 42-month delivery period runs from the date of the Period of Approval, which for these SPAs is the date of the first/original approval of the Building Plans obtained within the Approval Period, not from the expiry of the Approval/Extended Approval Period nor from the date of the last amended building plan approval; the issue was a pure question of law suitable for summary judgment; any ambiguity is resolved contra proferentem against the developer; appeal dismissed and summary judgment and costs affirmed.

Citation
02(i)-3-01/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Parties
Appellant: ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.; Respondents: 62 individual purchasers (named respondents/plaintiffs)
Court
i
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
7 July 2025
Case Number
02(i)-3-01/2025(W) (Mahkamah Persekutuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (contract) / Federal Court Final Judgment on Appeal (affirming Court of Appeal and High Court)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal and High Court affirmed; summary judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14 ROC 2012), Liquidated Damages, Contractual Interpretation, Vacant Possession, Contra Proferentem, Business Common Sense Interpretation
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Civil Procedure Property/real Estate Law Summary Judgment (order 14 ROC 2012) Liquidated Damages Contractual Interpretation Vacant Possession Contra Proferentem +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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ICON CITY DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD.

Appellant

62 individual purchasers (named respondents/plaintiffs)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (contract) / Federal Court Final Judgment on Appeal (affirming Court of Appeal and High Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 42-month delivery period runs from the date of the Period of Approval (date of first building plan approval within the Approval Period) or from the expiry of the Approval/Extended Approval Period
  2. 2 Whether definition of 'Building Plans' as including amendments means time runs from last amended approval rather than first approval
  3. 3 Whether matter was suitable for summary judgment under Order 14 or required trial

Ratio Decidendi

The Federal Court held that the 42-month delivery period runs from the date of the Period of Approval, which for these SPAs is the date of the first/original approval of the Building Plans obtained within the Approval Period, not from the expiry of the Approval/Extended Approval Period nor from the date of the last amended building plan approval; the issue was a pure question of law suitable for summary judgment; any ambiguity is resolved contra proferentem against the developer; appeal dismissed and summary judgment and costs affirmed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; decision of Court of Appeal and High Court affirmed; summary judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs
  • Costs of RM80,000.00 to the respondents subject to allocator