GAYA IRAMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD MOHD AZLI BIN MOHD NIZAH

GAYA IRAMA DEVELOPMENT SDN BHD MOHD AZLI BIN MOHD NIZAH

Clause 24(3) of the sale and purchase agreement expressly fixed accrual of the cause of action for liquidated damages as the date the purchaser takes vacant possession (27 August 2019). Accordingly the action filed on 8 October 2021 was within the six-year limitation period. Limitation was the sole defence and did not raise a triable issue; summary judgment was therefore properly granted and the strike out application failed.

Citation
BA-12ANCvC-102-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant in the Court Below: Gaya Irama Development Sdn Bhd; Respondent/plaintiff in the Court Below: Mohd Azli bin Mohd Nizah
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
15 June 2023
Case Number
BA-12ANCvC-102-08/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (summary Judgment and Striking Out) / High Court Appeal (final Judgment)
Outcome
Both appeals by Gaya Irama Development Sdn Bhd dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Striking Out, Accrual of Cause of Action, Liquidated Damages, Vacant Possession, Construction of Contractual Clause, Pleading Requirements
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Limitation Civil Procedure Property/housing Law Summary Judgment Striking Out Accrual of Cause of Action Liquidated Damages +3 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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gaya Irama Development Sdn Bhd

Appellant/defendant in the Court Below

Mohd Azli bin Mohd Nizah

Respondent/plaintiff in the Court Below

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal From Sessions Court (summary Judgment and Striking Out) / High Court Appeal (final Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether summary judgment was properly granted to plaintiff for liquidated damages
  2. 2 Whether defendant's application to strike out plaintiff's Writ and Statement of Claim was correctly dismissed
  3. 3 When the cause of action for liquidated damages accrued under the sale and purchase agreement

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 24(3) of the sale and purchase agreement expressly fixed accrual of the cause of action for liquidated damages as the date the purchaser takes vacant possession (27 August 2019). Accordingly the action filed on 8 October 2021 was within the six-year limitation period. Limitation was the sole defence and did not raise a triable issue; summary judgment was therefore properly granted and the strike out application failed.

Court Disposition

Both appeals by Gaya Irama Development Sdn Bhd dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal No. BA-12ANCvC-101-08/2022 (against summary judgment) dismissed with costs; defendant to pay costs of RM5,000
  • Appeal No. BA-12ANCvC-102-08/2022 (against dismissal of striking out application) dismissed; no order as to costs