Transformer Repairs & Services Sdn Bhd ( ) Lim Choon Seng ( )

Transformer Repairs & Services Sdn Bhd ( ) Lim Choon Seng ( )

Summary judgment was set aside because the defendant raised genuine triable issues: whether Clause 3 was breached (right of first priority to purchase), whether the tenancy subsisted by virtue of payment of RM237,600, and related factual and interpretive questions that require a full trial; therefore the matter was not appropriate for disposal under Order 14.

Citation
BA-12A-78-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Transformer Repairs & Services Sdn Bhd (Company No. 1183632-V); Respondent/plaintiff: Lim Choon Seng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 June 2020
Case Number
BA-12A-78-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Appeal — Judgment Setting Aside Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; summary judgment dated 8 November 2019 set aside; costs awarded to appellant.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Breach of Tenancy Agreement, Right of First Refusal, Tenancy Renewal, Vacant Possession, Security Deposit
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Landlord and Tenant Civil Procedure Summary Judgment (order 14) Breach of Tenancy Agreement Right of First Refusal Tenancy Renewal +2 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Transformer Repairs & Services Sdn Bhd (Company No. 1183632-V)

Appellant/defendant

Lim Choon Seng

Respondent/plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal Against Sessions Court Summary Judgment (order 14 Rules of Court 2012) / Appeal — Judgment Setting Aside Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether triable issues exist as to breach of Clause 3 (special condition) of the tenancy agreement (right of first priority to purchase)
  2. 2 Whether the tenancy was still subsisting when RM237,600 was paid/received and therefore whether the landlord accepted renewal
  3. 3 Whether the Notice of Termination constituted a sale notice triggering Clause 3 or merely notice of expiry under Clause 2.1(k)

Ratio Decidendi

Summary judgment was set aside because the defendant raised genuine triable issues: whether Clause 3 was breached (right of first priority to purchase), whether the tenancy subsisted by virtue of payment of RM237,600, and related factual and interpretive questions that require a full trial; therefore the matter was not appropriate for disposal under Order 14.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; summary judgment dated 8 November 2019 set aside; costs awarded to appellant.

Orders

  • Summary judgment dated 8 November 2019 is set aside
  • Appeal allowed