LSSC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V. THOMAS IRUTHAYAM & ANOR

LSSC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V. THOMAS IRUTHAYAM & ANOR

The breach did not amount to refusal or failure to perform the promise in its entirety because the defendant had transferred the land and erected the house; read together ss.40 and 56(1) require total failure to engage voidability. Therefore the contract was not voidable and the plaintiffs were not entitled to rescind ab initio or recover restitution; their remedy was damages/liquidated damages and the High Court orders for refund and deregistration were set aside and damages were ordered to be assessed.

Citation
LSSC DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD V. THOMAS IRUTHAYAM & ANOR
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: LSSC Development Sdn Bhd; Defendant/appellant: Thomas Iruthayam & Anor
Court
Malaysian court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court declaration and orders set aside; judgment for plaintiffs for damages for late delivery and breach of contract; assessment remitted
Legal Topics
Repudiation, Termination Vs Rescission, Liquidated Damages, Restitution, Failure of Consideration
Source Language
en
Contract Law Equity Specific Relief Repudiation Termination Vs Rescission Liquidated Damages Restitution Failure of Consideration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LSSC Development Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff/respondent

Thomas Iruthayam & Anor

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to rescind the contract ab initio and obtain restitution for a breach that did not go to the root of the contract
  2. 2 Whether s.40 and s.56(1) of the Contracts Act 1950 applied to render the contract voidable
  3. 3 Whether the correct remedy for the plaintiffs was restitution (refund and deregistration) or damages/liquidated damages under the contract

Ratio Decidendi

The breach did not amount to refusal or failure to perform the promise in its entirety because the defendant had transferred the land and erected the house; read together ss.40 and 56(1) require total failure to engage voidability. Therefore the contract was not voidable and the plaintiffs were not entitled to rescind ab initio or recover restitution; their remedy was damages/liquidated damages and the High Court orders for refund and deregistration were set aside and damages were ordered to be assessed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court declaration and orders set aside; judgment for plaintiffs for damages for late delivery and breach of contract; assessment remitted

Orders

  • High Court declaration and all orders set aside
  • Judgment entered for the plaintiffs for damages for late delivery and breach of contract