IVORIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. NG SUAT CHENG

IVORIA DEVELOPMENT SDN. BHD. NG SUAT CHENG

The appeal is dismissed and the summary judgment below is affirmed because the plaintiff satisfied Order 14 requirements and the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: the SPA is a statutory contract under the HDA preserving the purchaser's right to liquidated damages; the contractual delivery date preceded the COVID‑19 exclusion period so s35 did not apply; the developer's claimed third‑party and operational difficulties do not excuse breach; and the purchaser has locus standi to sue.

Citation
NA-12ANCvC-8-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Perayu/defendan: Ivoria Development Sdn Bhd; Responden/plaintif: Ng Suat Cheng
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
9 September 2024
Case Number
NA-12ANCvC-8-04/2024 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court (summary Judgment Under Order 14)
Outcome
appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment (order 14), Liquidated Damages for Late Delivery, Time for Delivery of Vacant Possession, Statutory Sale and Purchase Agreement (schedule G Hda), COVID 19 Act S35 Exclusion, Locus Standi of Purchaser
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Housing Development Law Civil Procedure Property Law Summary Judgment (order 14) Liquidated Damages for Late Delivery Time for Delivery of Vacant Possession Statutory Sale and Purchase Agreement (schedule G Hda) +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 7 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivoria Development Sdn Bhd

Perayu/defendan

Ng Suat Cheng

Responden/plaintif

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal From Sessions Court (summary Judgment Under Order 14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the sale and purchase agreement is a statutory contract enforceable under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act
  2. 2 whether section 35 of the COVID-19 Act 2020 excludes the MCO period from calculation of delay in this case
  3. 3 whether the developer's operational and third‑party problems excuse the contractual delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed and the summary judgment below is affirmed because the plaintiff satisfied Order 14 requirements and the defendant failed to raise any triable issue: the SPA is a statutory contract under the HDA preserving the purchaser's right to liquidated damages; the contractual delivery date preceded the COVID‑19 exclusion period so s35 did not apply; the developer's claimed third‑party and operational difficulties do not excuse breach; and the purchaser has locus standi to sue.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; judgment below affirmed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Sessions Court summary judgment allowing plaintiff's Order 14 application affirmed