SUNWAY SEAFRONT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1147352-T) ONECLE SOLUTION SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1146770-X)

SUNWAY SEAFRONT SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1147352-T) ONECLE SOLUTION SDN BHD (COMPANY NO.: 1146770-X)

Defendant failed to raise any bona fide defence or triable issue; its allegations were contradicted by the clear express terms of the tenancy agreement (including as-is and entire agreement clauses) and contemporaneous evidence (continued use of premises), therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Order 14 ROC and costs.

Citation
JA-22NCVC-18-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: Sunway Seafront Sdn Bhd; Defendant: Onecle Solution Sdn Bhd
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 July 2021
Case Number
JA-22NCVC-18-02/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit – Tenancy/contract (summary Judgment Under Order 14 Roc) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Plaintiff's claim allowed subject to amendments relating to the period for which double rent is claimed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Tenancy Agreement, Breach of Contract, Vacant Possession, Liquidated Damages, Post Dated Cheques, Entire Agreement Clause, Suspension of Rent
Source Language
Malay/English
Contract Property Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Summary Judgment Tenancy Agreement Breach of Contract Vacant Possession +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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sunway Seafront Sdn Bhd

Plaintiff

Onecle Solution Sdn Bhd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit – Tenancy/contract (summary Judgment Under Order 14 Roc) / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment under Order 14 ROC
  2. 2 Whether defendant has raised a bona fide defence or triable issues
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations induced the defendant to enter the tenancy

Ratio Decidendi

Defendant failed to raise any bona fide defence or triable issue; its allegations were contradicted by the clear express terms of the tenancy agreement (including as-is and entire agreement clauses) and contemporaneous evidence (continued use of premises), therefore plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment under Order 14 ROC and costs.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment entered for the Plaintiff; Plaintiff's claim allowed subject to amendments relating to the period for which double rent is claimed; costs awarded to Plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim allowed on summary judgment
  • Defendant to account for and pay outstanding sums as determined (claim allowed subject to amendment regarding period for double rent)