1. ) WONG YONG FOOK 2. ) WONG HONG HWA COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD.

1. ) WONG YONG FOOK 2. ) WONG HONG HWA COUNTRY GARDEN PACIFICVIEW SDN. BHD.

Defendants failed to show the plaintiff's claim was plainly and obviously unsustainable: the effective amount paid (including the promotional rebate) met the 10% threshold and, in any event, a regulatory breach of HDR does not automatically void or render unenforceable the SPA; no triable issues existed to defeat summary judgment and the counterclaim was not plainly and obviously sustainable, therefore the Sessions Court's orders granting summary judgment and striking out the counterclaim were correctly upheld.

Citation
JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Wong Yong Fook; Appellant/defendant: Wong Hong Hwa; Respondent/plaintiff: Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
1 March 2023
Case Number
JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Appeal From Sessions Court Civil / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
All three appeals dismissed; Sessions Court orders upheld
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Sale and Purchase Agreement, Summary Judgment, Striking Out Pleadings, Housing Development (control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 Compliance
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Housing Law Civil Procedure Specific Performance Sale and Purchase Agreement Summary Judgment Striking Out Pleadings Housing Development (control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 Compliance

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wong Yong Fook

Appellant/defendant

Wong Hong Hwa

Appellant/defendant

Country Garden Pacificview Sdn Bhd

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Appeal From Sessions Court Civil / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether collection of deposit less than 10% contravenes HDR and renders SPA void or unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether SPA is void for public policy under s.24(e) Contract Act 1950
  3. 3 Whether defendants established triable issues to defeat summary judgment

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants failed to show the plaintiff's claim was plainly and obviously unsustainable: the effective amount paid (including the promotional rebate) met the 10% threshold and, in any event, a regulatory breach of HDR does not automatically void or render unenforceable the SPA; no triable issues existed to defeat summary judgment and the counterclaim was not plainly and obviously sustainable, therefore the Sessions Court's orders granting summary judgment and striking out the counterclaim were correctly upheld.

Court Disposition

All three appeals dismissed; Sessions Court orders upheld

Orders

  • Appeals JA-12ANCvC-59-06/2022, JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 and JA-12ANCvC-61-06/2022 dismissed
  • Sessions Court's allowance of plaintiff's summary judgment and striking out of defendants' counterclaim affirmed