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.

The court dismissed all three appeals: the Sessions Court was right to refuse to strike out the plaintiff's claim because the claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable; the amount actually paid plus the promotional rebate exceeded 10% of the purchase price so the HDR complaint failed on the facts, and even if HDR breach existed that would not automatically void the SPA; defendants failed to raise triable issues to resist summary judgment for specific performance; the counterclaim was not plainly and obviously sustainable and was properly struck out.

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
Civil Appeal / Hearing of Appeals Against Sessions Court Decisions on Striking Out, Summary Judgment and Counterclaim
Outcome
Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics
Specific Performance, Validity of Contract, Statutory Compliance (hdr), Striking Out Pleadings, Summary Judgment, Public Policy (contract Act S.24), Return of Deposit, Triable Issues
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Law Housing Law Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Specific Performance Validity of Contract Statutory Compliance (hdr) Striking Out Pleadings +4 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 14 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

Civil Appeal / Hearing of Appeals Against Sessions Court Decisions on Striking Out, Summary Judgment and Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether collection of less than 10% deposit rendered the SPA void under HDR
  2. 2 Whether the SPA was unenforceable under s.24(e) Contract Act 1950 on public policy grounds
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claim disclosed a reasonable cause of action and was not plainly unsustainable

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed all three appeals: the Sessions Court was right to refuse to strike out the plaintiff's claim because the claim was not plainly and obviously unsustainable; the amount actually paid plus the promotional rebate exceeded 10% of the purchase price so the HDR complaint failed on the facts, and even if HDR breach existed that would not automatically void the SPA; defendants failed to raise triable issues to resist summary judgment for specific performance; the counterclaim was not plainly and obviously sustainable and was properly struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

  • Dismissed Appeal JA-12ANCvC-59-06/2022 (challenge to refusal to strike out plaintiff's claim)
  • Dismissed Appeal JA-12ANCvC-60-06/2022 (challenge to grant of summary judgment for plaintiff; specific performance allowed)